Well, it shouldn't, anyway. I'm not convinced that the current SCOTUS is anywhere near as non-partisan as we historically expect. As in, I think we might get very different rulings on issues of presidential power depending on who the president in question is. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that. If I'm not, and if an energetic and unconstrained Democrat gets elected to the White House we're going to have a civil war when that Democrat begins swinging the power of the presidency for progressive ends just as hard as Trump has been doing for, er, well, whatever Trump's ends are (they aren't conservative, certainly, nor really even populist).

I agree with this in general. Democrats tend to push the boundaries more, particularly with respect to redistribution of wealth. Again, though, the current administration is an extreme outlier; even more extreme than FDR. So much so that even though SCOTUS is bending over backwards for him, I think even they are going to reject a lot of what he's trying to do. They've been very willing to halt that extraordinary number of stays that lower courts have issued, temporarily blocking the administration's mind bogglingly-unconstitutional actions, but I remain hopeful that when it comes time to rule on the actual merits -- and to write logically-coherent opinions justifying their decisions -- they'll ultimately follow the law, at least most of the time.

OTOH, I never thought they'd declare the president to be above the law.

I know GDPR article 27 doesn't let companies outside the EU sell to customers in the EU or collect any personal data from viewers in the EU without paying a ton of money per year to a representative service.

Henry Ford's prospective customers said they wanted a faster horse. And if you ask your users how often you should be asking your users for feedback, they'll probably say never because asking interrupts their immediate task.

What's the GDPR-compliant way to inform users that people who decline to participate in a user survey risk losing access to features?

"BMV" in the US state of Indiana means "Bureau of Motor Vehicles". I don't know whether any other jurisdictions use that term.

Emissions and CAFE are separate standards. CAFE relates to fuel economy. US automakers have been making light trucks instead of cars to exploit the looser CAFE standards on trucks. It's why Ford has lost its focus since April 2018.

Newspapers and Facebook are heading that way with "pay or consent" schemes in GDPR territories.

I've noticed a lot of comments to Slashdot articles stating that they didn't read the featured article on account of having to buy a month's subscription just to read one article.

What's the privacy-respecting way to determine demand among users for continuing to maintain a particular feature of a website or web application?

300mi is absolutely fine for the vast majority of Texans. There is a small minority who live in areas where highway charging infrastructure is still deficient and who also regularly need to drive longer distances than that, but not very many.

Actually, this might be an interesting exercise. What route do you regularly drive that wouldn't be feasible with a 300-mile range? I'll check and see if it actually wouldn't work.

A better solution is to do the same thing that should be done with stock trading: Require government officials (and their family members) who might have access to insider information to publish their trades in advance. The advance notice wouldn't even have to be large if the information was published electronically in a feed that could easily be monitored by other investors and the press. A couple of business days, maybe less. This should apply to all securities, real-estate purchases, predictions, etc., anything people speculate on. Not only would this highlight possible insider trading, it would erase most of the potential benefit of trading on inside information. It wouldn't harm government officials' legitimate investment opportunities.

It would still be possible for officials to pass tips to friends who are outside the group required to disclose their trades in advance, of course. It's ultimately very hard to stop that sort of thing, assuming the friends stay loyal, but that's a risky bet. Especially since the sort of friend who would engage in such illicit trading is probably the sort who might end up in some other sort of trouble with the law, and might find it convenient to flip on their buddy.

GNOME Web (codename Epiphany), the default web browser of the GNOME desktop environment, uses Apple WebKit. I've seen Apple fans recommend it as a proxy for testing a hobbyist website in macOS without having to buy a $999 MacBook.

Under your preference, what would be the appropriate venue for public service announcements or for advertising product review publications?

Because the major newspapers with "Times" in their name are paywalled, and The Guardian has publicly committed not to require a paid subscription.

Would this be more honest? "I enjoy reading short stories. However, given my life circumstance, a novella about as long as H. G. Wells's The Time Machine is the upper limit before work or household interruptions inevitably break my concentration."

This will lead to two things: more paywalls to replace the forgone ad revenue, and more service providers discontinuing service in Vietnam.

How would you recommend to fund writing and hosting a website if the website operator cannot sell "behavioral" ad impressions targeted to the individual viewer's inferred interests? I'm aware that it's possible to target an impression to the context of the document in which the ad appears. This is called "contextual" ad placement. However, advertisers are willing to pay three times as much for a behavioral impression than for an contextual impression. Banning publishers from selling behavioral impressions would lead to more countdown interstitials, more paywalls, and more websites disappearing from the Internet when their operators run out of money.