The basics don't change. The terms assume that we have the legal rights about everything we enter into firefox. But if you search something copyrighted by a third party, then I don't think you have the right to give them a royalty free worlwide etc. license. This is still bogus. Unless you agree not to use firefox for any term, image etc. that you don't own. It is probably difficult to phrase for them but it is not the right terms.

This is so ridiculousy broad. It implies that you are in a position to give them a license. No more search for lyrics, code snippet, image etc. that you don't own. I also wonder if it applies to passwords.

Many downplay COVID because fatalities are not higher. But exceptional measures were taken to limit the spread. These were successful (I live in a country that was confined when things went out of control and it worked). If we took such actions for the regular flu, it would be nothing. So the number to consider to say whether it is dangerous or not is the number of deaths without measures or at equivalent levels of prevention. Most people survive jumping off a plane. It's not because it is inherently safe. It is because they wear a parachute. But covid talks seem to ignore that the world almost stopped and we still have over 1 million fatalities.

The question is: why zoom, webex, teams, etc just for video chat? Wake up. It is ridiculous. There should be one standard and these should be clients. Use one or another. They should compete on price, performance, extra plugins, etc. But be interoperable for voice and video. You should not have to install new software just to talk to someone online in 2020 (hope your company firewall let's it go through, and waste time because there is always someone that can't connect). It should be like phone, like email. By now it should be a commodity. You don't have 5 phones on your desk right? No surprise then each company puts garbage together instead of using well thought standards. The issue is not zoom. It's all of them. It is an industry failure.

Really. The CEO of GM Cruise Automation ? His view must be unbiased. Clearly no conflict of interest.

More seriously, I don't understand yet what automation will solve. A few examples:

* In urban areas, the day passengers of mass transportation start taking small automated vehicle because it is as affordable, we are doomed. How many automated vehicles do you need for one bus, one subway?

* People refrain from taking their car sometimes because of parking issues. Now for a short shopping trip, they will take an automated vehicle and, if it is their own, let it drive around. No need to park. Great. Or they will do more short trips than before because it suddenly became convenient.

* Now that my car has automation, I will take longer trips on the freeway than before. Of course, I'll be alone in the car. What's the point otherwise: if I had passengers, I would share the driving and would do it now already.

It is not about technology but how people will use it. It may actually get congestion, pollution, space issues use worse by increasing traffic.

Finally about safety. Current fatalities are close to 1 per 100 million km in Europe and North America (just the order of magnitude, correct with actual numbers if you wish). That includes all weather conditions, road environments etc. So let's wait for similar performance before bragging about anything. We may never get there (investment needs for most complex scenarios vs. safety improvements ).

Opera mini doesn't work. Standard browser is slow on reasonably new phone (dual core 1.2Ghz with Android 4). But with hours of tweaking, I am sure I can find a solution to read text somewhat comfortably on a screen (yes LCD, not CRT, modern stuff). A site for nerds with time on their hands. Feeling young again... I am underwhelmed.