Not for everyone in every location. It has only been the case for me for less than the last month.

Actually, they're still tracking, just being more obvious about it. Making you search lets them rule out your making random selections and thus gives better insight into your true interests. As for what they're supposed to recommend, how about just a selection of recent uploads or trending videos? I, for one, go to youtube when I don't have anything better to do and am just looking for some short duration entertainment. If I'm looking for something specific I'll search regardless of what recommendations they present.

On the one hand, Amazon is quoted saying we need more CS exposure for K-12 because "the U.S. isn't producing nearly enough students trained in computer science to meet the future demands of the American workforce" but then they tell college graduates with CS degrees and already hired/promised jobs that they won't be allowed to start working for another year. Something doesn't add up. Has anyone studied whether more classroom exposure to math leads to significantly more engineers or if more classroom exposure to gymnastics leads to more Olympians?

Misquoted again. My statement was specifically limited to the effect of ice particles from contrails being sufficient to account for 57% of a plane's climate impact. It's the stated magnitude of the effect that I object to. Similarly, the original post cited claims that "diverting just 1.7% of flights could reduce the climate damage of contrails by as much as 59%". From that, you can extrapolate that barely 3% of all flights are producing these "damaging" contrails. That is such a tiny margin as to be irrelevant in the over all scheme of climate impact factors.

I believe I mentioned the distinction between exhaust trails and contrails in my original comment. Did you perhaps overlook that?

No, I think you're confusing what I wrote with what you think I wrote. I wrote that contrails are "caused by" wingtip vortices in combination with an assortment of atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, and altitude) - I did not write that wingtip vortices "were" contrails - there's a difference.

Oh, many, grasshopper.

Perhaps you're not considering the tips of the horizontal stabilizers as wingtips but, they are - they just happen to be smaller and inverted from those of the wings but they still produce the vortices. That makes four tips, if my math is up to speed.

What a crock of brown stuff! I'm no climatologist but I do have more than 20 years aviation experience and contrails do not "form when water vapor condenses into ice crystals around the small particles emitted by jet engines". Contrails typically form in the wingtip vortices well away from the engine exhaust. The dynamics of air pressure in creating lift combine with temperature and humidity to produce the ice particles that make up these trails. You can see this yourself just looking out the window the next time your flying commercially as well as by watching those trails form behind high-energy maneuvering aircraft during airshows. That might apply to an exhaust trail but not all contrails are exhaust trails and not all exhaust trails involve ice crystals. Likewise, the ice particles in contrails could not trap "heat that would otherwise be released into space" such that the "contrails contribute 57% of a plane's climate impact". Contrails, or even just visible exhaust trails, do not appear behind every aircraft in flight, hardly even close to 50% of those aircraft. Contrails, in particular, require a narrow range of altitude, speed, temperature, and humidity combined to form. You can often eliminate your contrails by climbing or descending as little as 1000' in altitude. It would be generous to claim that contrails form consistently behind even 5-10% of flights globally on any given day. This whole "study" reeks of pseudo-science or deliberate mis-interpretation drawn from their data to support a political rather than scientific hypothesis.

As I read the original, it's the ISPs who are asking the government to mandate what the users of the ISPs service pay. That would seem to open the door for the government to mandate what the ISPs themselves charge their customers as well as mandate (further) what the ISPs are permitted to carry, content wise. Additionally, if the content providers are required to fund infrastructure, over an above what they already pay as customers, then they should be classed as partners with the ISP and, as partners, have voting rights in how infrastructure upgrades and/or extensions are prioritized and executed. The content providers should be allowed to demand extension of internet services into areas not currently served adequately in order to open up their markets to additional customers for them to reach and thus improve their revenues. Likewise, all of the content providers should be given insight into the financials of the ISPs to insure transparency and proper oversight. Should such prioritizations fail to be followed then the content providers must be enabled to seek damages from the ISPs. With these caveats in the response from the content providers the ISP demands will quickly dissolve.

Same with any Kindle book you borrow from a library - you have to go to Amazon after check-out in order to download the book to your Kindle. Pain in the posterior.

I always keep the receipt for every purchase made with my cards. When I get each bill I do a line by line check to match each entry against my receipts. It only takes a couple of minutes and I can do it while watching TV. If I spot anything suspicious I contact the CC company and dispute it. Since they no longer require written notice of any dispute this is a fairly painless approach to detecting any fraudulent activity. Plus it keeps me aware of what I'm spending. As long as thieves can "guess" numbers and use them your actual numbers are never going to be completely secure.

Ceaseless pain or agony can be a strong motivator.

Reminds me of something out of Harry Harrison's novel "Make room, make room" - the inspiration for "Soylent Green".

So, when the police ask to see my ID I'll have to unlock my phone and give it to them to view said ID. And if they then decide to search my phone for anything else they might be curious about it will already be unlocked for their convenience?