You have a short memory. This shit show isn't worse than the past. MS very much pushed out colossally fucked up updates, even back in the XP days. Heck back then, before the days of automated recovery processes shit was MUCH worse. There were actual updates that may have forced you to go looking for your Windows XP install disc to fix.

Your comment fails for the same reason. By your reasoning you don't know anything about Microsoft's process but you're declaring victory for Open Source. The reality is that everything who makes this an open vs closed issue is very ignorantly missing the underlying fact that security update affect all platforms and all practices for releasing code, open or closed. Just in different ways.

It does not. Zero-days are a thing on Linux. EOL is a thing on Linux, and many modern distros very much will force auto-update packages marked as a security risk.

Congrats, you so clever. All users did this in the 90s. It was a security nightmare, especially when people were proud of running out of date buggy software. You may be an expert and capable of curating your update process (I'll give you the benefit of doubt, generous of me since you think this concept is OS related) but that doesn't mean what you do is even remotely appropriate for 99% of users out there, regardless of what OS they use.

And yet the answer is actually yes. Unless all you do is Linux command line stuff or browse static webpages using a browser that last was standards compliant in the early 2000s, 4GB is not longer a viable minimum for anyone who doesn't also spend their evenings self-flagellating. It's masochistic to use an underperforming computer.

The internet is dynamic. Lazy loading is an optimisation technique that makes the browser experience better for the 99.99% of people currently *not* sitting at the airport about to board a flight.

What you really want to do is save the page. Chrome has that function, though I suspect it will have other problems, but it very much does load all images and make the page static (many webpages have an expiry / timeout period so even if you pre-loaded the tab, activating it 30min later will cause it to attempt to reload). There's a shitload of things preventing you doing what you want to do, you really need to find another solution.

Print to PDF may work too?

Lazy-loading is not load on demand. It's literally loading it when it gets close to the viewport, in advance, before the user actually sees it or clicks on it. It's the middle thing between loading on demand, and pre-loading every element on the page.

Continuous scrolling content has nothing to do with this article. This article is about Chrome, and Ctrl+F works fine for all loaded content, you are misdirecting your anger in a comment to the wrong article. Also you can't load infinitely. You can't Ctrl+F the second page of Slashdot while on the first page either.

This has nothing to do with anything. You are making a completely off-topic rant. Continuous scrolling pages are not a symptom of using a pre-made libarary. It's a choice for displaying content. An admittedly shitty and anti-consumer choice, but a choice none the less. They may use a pre-made library to do it (and they should, too many programmers baking their own recipe is the reason why some continuously loading pages just end up as a ginormous memory leak. If they were *good* programmers they'd understand the value of using a tried and tested library using DOM-reuse or some other efficient way of doing their anti-consumer task. But none of this has anything to do with lazy-loading of video / audio.

Disagree heavily. You should absolutely load. Autoplay absolutely is a cancer and entirely within the control of the user, but when the user hits that play button that video better play instantly and not sit there buffering or loading. Lazyloading is a good thing that makes the internet appear far more responsive.

Your vehicle has a specifically identifiable and liable owner. The onus on you is to ensure your vehicle is used safely, that includes keeping track of people who may not drive it. Most states have legal requirements that you know the driver of the vehicle and have verified their driving permits, and as the owner the liability lies with you or the person who can legally admit to having committed the offense.

There's nothing inconsistent with the law here.

Fun fact in some countries these things are treated differently depending on how the infraction is identified. For example where I live a ticket issued by a police officer in person holds me liable and can result in the revocation of my license. However a ticket issued to the vehicle by an automatic camera can only hold a person financially liable as there's no way to verify who the person was. As such the owner gets the fine (which may be paid by anyone) but critically you cannot have your license revoked by an automated camera.

You just defined a rule, i.e. the exact opposite of arbitrary. The speed you described is based on something physical. Also the reason the speed limit has an upper percentile is because two elements affect road safety: Total speed, and speed variance. The 85% rule exists to reduce upper speed variance improving road safety. It was set based on a statistical analysis of accidents, and the only "arbitrary" component of this is how many citizens are considered expendable to keep cars moving quickly, and even that wasn't completely arbitrary as that point was chosen to be a point below where the accident rate increases at a significantly higher rate.

Also the US government no longer recommends the use of the 85% rule and the guidance to states is to set speed limits based on local context and road design.

If you are distracted by speed limit signs to the point where you can't focus on driving, hand your license in. Especially in the USA where the skyline is made up of nothing but billboards and adverts.

You not understanding something doesn't make it arbitrary, much less is it a cause for a stupid conspiracy.

It's a staple in many countries around the world and has been for many years.

Nope. There is nothing arbitrary about the value chosen. Because you don't understand the background trade-offs, or how the limits are set related to road safety, both in pre-engineered systems which define speed limits based on types of roads, and that weird system that the USA did employ for a while where the limit is set based on a percentile of the average road speed doesn't make it arbitrary.

And why have a limit in the first place? Well even when you set it based on crowd sourcing the average acceptable speed (bad way to do it since there's ample literature showing people overestimate their capabilities), you still have enhanced safety by reducing speed variance - i.e. getting the people going above average speed to stick to a limit.

Claiming that speed limits do not improve public safety is just stupid. Not ignorant, just stupid. You don't even need to research this to conceptually understand why your statement is wrong.

I'm not sure why the public should have a problem paying a completely optional donation to the government. I mean they literally have signs on the side of the highway telling you what to do if you don't want to pay.

It does not more than any other speed limit. Cameras don't factor in to it. Waze and Google never time a path that considers the user going above the speed limit. In NL this also obeys the variable speed zones that change after 7pm. They only consider going at max speed limit, and below given current traffic movement. This happens in Germany too which is why you can easily shave off quite a bit of time on the autobahn since Google maxes both services at 130km/h, even if that speed is not a limit but a recommendation.

What you may be seeing is that Waze does take into account when the average speed camera is variable. E.g. the A20 variable zone where the averaging camera is in place is raised to 100km/h either side of the peak hour. It does take that into account.