Google's argument is simply a trivial permutation of that slob's "worthless clause" defense, with which he tried (and failed) to escape felony criminal conviction for fraud.

Perhaps more significantly, Google is now on record, testifying and admitting, under oath, that their LLM-generated summaries are garbage.

Most people don't need free speech because they have nothing to say.
Most people don't need guns because they have nothing to shoot.
Most people don't need to worry about housing soldiers because military personnel have taxpayer funded housing.
Most people don't need to worry about their stuff being unlawfully searched because they have nothing to hide.
Most people don't need to worry about incriminating themselves because they don't commit crimes.
Most people don't need their trials to be public because they don't get put on trial.
Most people don't need the guaranteed ability to sue someone because most people don't file lawsuits.
Most people don't need to worry about excessive bail being imposed because most people don't get arrested.
Most people don't need to worry about any of those rights being used against other rights.
Most people don't care whether a right is granted by the state or federal government.

Fortunately for those who DO find themselves in a place where the government would cause issues in these matters, a bunch of old guys a few hundred years ago had the presence of mind to realize that the point of rights isn't because "most people" need to exercise them regularly, it's to create limits so that "most people" *don't" need to exercise them regularly.

For all the positive, pro-consumer elements of Steam, unless Steam builds some sort of generic network abstraction layer into the Steam client, I don't think that swapping out "a dependence on Gamespy" for "a dependence on Steam" is really the answer here...

Back in 2004, *everyone* had to port forward in order to host a game server. That's the alternative to "let EA host it until they don't feel like it anymore". The point is to give the control back to gamers, but responsibility comes with that - specifically, "how to do a port forward". More to your point, it probably would have been smart to see if you and the friend capable of hosting the game could get a session going with just the two of you, then invite everyone else once you had the procedures in place. Again, the logistics aren't Epic's problem.

There will always be a group who favors simplicity over capability, but it's not like, in the case of UT2004, Epic added some sort of technological barriers to actively prevent you from playing the game, because it DOES still work perfectly once the port forward is in place. Similarly, the expectation isn't that a game is going to still have millions of players after it's EOL, it's to ensure that the few-thousand who *do* still want to play it aren't limited explicitly by the absence of server-side code. "My friends and I can't port forward" isn't that limitation - "the server-side code was never publicly released and the enthusiasts who attempted to reverse engineer it got DMCA slapped" *is*,

Also, there are still some public UT2004 servers you could mostly-one-click (copy/pasting an IP address would be close-enough to what you're describing, I'd hope):
https://pwc-gaming.com/game-se...

And, if you were a bit more interested, a cheap VPS can run LinuxGSM, a Linux build explicitly designed to be a game server for dozens of games like UT2004 that have the capability of connecting to custom dedicated servers:
https://docs.linuxgsm.com/game... ...the thing is, UT2004 is kinda the textbook example of what these games *should* look like - entirely playable in single-player mode *today*, and shipping with both map creation software and dedicated server software, including a Linux build...and it was so well built, that one need not even emulate Windows XP to do it; the game runs just fine on Windows 11 and on GPUs that didn't exist at the time. The Crew was a powder keg precisely because it was the opposite of UT2004 - dependent on central servers for no technical reason.

[citation needed]

Fast, effective, included the nView Desktop Manager to include transparency and window-shade mode to any window, and it was under 100MB installed.

Why nvidia drivers are now larger than Windows XP itself is a mystery to me, and they've always been a concession that has gotten bigger, slower, and more confusing than what they replaced.

1. The vehicle is only at the preorder stage; they're not shipping any as best as I can ascertain. Pricing isn't listed, either.

2. The vehicle is only available as an SUV/Pickup. While the modular design has merit, there is no sedan available.

3. The website makes no claims regarding privacy, except in its privacy policy regarding the website. The closest indicator is the absence of an infotainment system, but that doesn't mean that it lacks a telemetry module; there is no specific indication that it lacks one.

4. If it's not shipping yet, it will likely still be subject to forthcoming laws regarding kill switches; they have made no claims to the contrary. ...So, while I would LOVE for Slate to be the starting point, and I'd even switch to an SUV form factor to get it AND pay double the cost of a Camry for it...I don't think it's really reasonable to have a "put your money where your mouth is" stance when the vehicle is not available for purchase, is only available in one form factor, and where the company makes no claim to lack a telemetry module. I'm open to a solution, but a Slate gives me zero confidence that it is, in fact, that solution.

That can be rectified.

Even on a stock Google Android phone, one can at least SOMEWHAT mitigate data collection by not-installing certain apps. To my knowledge, Meta doesn't get data if you don't install FB/IG/WA. Also, one could leave their phone at home and drive somewhere if tracking was undesirable; while by definition, one cannot avoid that if the car itself is doing the tracking. Even if tracking is unavoidable on the phone, 'airplane mode' can assist in certain contexts.

Also, crazy as this is, there are still 'dumb phones' that exist, which may still involve selling location data or call logs by the carrier, but don't have the sensors or software to do the level of tracking that stock smartphones do. Some people do opt to get those instead.

The fact that they're in vehicles, without buyers being meaningfully informed, where even customers who do opt out of data collection still get their data collected, and don't have an 'airplane mode' available to them...nor a simple "remove this fuse" stipulated in the manual to negate the telemetry parts at a hardware level, nor a manufacturer that specifically sells a 'no telemetry' model (one CAN get a Fairphone with LineageOS out of the box; I haven't found a 2025-model car sold in the US that is analogous). While mass transit in the EU might be the extreme-but-possible solution, that's simply not the case in the US outside of some metro areas, so car ownership is a necessity, even more than a smartphone is.

Smartphone tracking is bad, but there are solutions, even if they are hard. Vehicle tracking is worse, because it's way more expensive to get that wrong than getting a Graphene install wrong.

...except for the 2015 version, every other version of Unreal Tournament can be spun up and made to work perfectly?

Same.

Also same...but something tells me that if Bitwarden were to do that, there would be a Vaultwarden fork the next day.

Even if there wasn't, browser-only access is annoying but serviceable, and it exports well enough to move to something else.

Tell me you haven't bought a Windows PC in a while without telling me.

They ALL encrypt the drives by default or any user intervention. For home users, I *disable* it as part of the initial out-of-box setup, because Bitlocker is enabled by default and the key is uploaded to the Microsoft Account users are forced to use/create when doing the initial machine setup.

Now, the REAL fun is that Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, decided that BIOS firmware updates are worth sending to users via Windows Update. Well, when those BIOS updates happen, they can sometimes trip the TPM in a way that requires the BitLocker key to be input in order to unlock the system. While MS will display the key's ID, it doesn't show the MS account it's tied to, so if a user forgot which e-mail address they happened to give during setup, or no longer have access to that account, the user loses access to their data because of a BIOS update that was probably either optional, or legitimately fixed a security vulnerability that required the laptop to be physically accessed in order to perform. 9 out of 10 laptop owners would absolutely prefer "a thief could potentially access my data if my laptop is stolen" over "i could lose my data if MS and HP decide to send an update"...keeping in mind users cannot opt out of updates, even to the extent of "update Windows, don't touch my BIOS".

So yeah, the story is legit; I have personally had to give people the bad news on this topic on more than one occasion, Pepperidge Farm remembers when BitLocker was a function Microsoft only included with Windows 7 Ultimate, but now it's enabled by default for home users with no meaningful awareness or consent given to do it.

Apparently, it's not ransomware when Microsoft does it.

Same...but the parents love it because they're cheap and easy to replace without data migration drama, and schools love 'em because of Google Classroom and Workspace functionality that Google gives to schools for peanuts while being checkbox compliant for bad-stuff-on-the-internet policies.

I'm grateful that I grew up learning to own my data...but I can appreciate that Google really made it seamless to not-worry about it.

That just means our security was good. You little anecdote isn't actual data.

Because automakers stopped giving car buyers some variant of the single-DIN/double-DIN dash cutout with standardized wire colors for a wire harness, so owners could put whatever they want into the dash if they didn't like the OEM offering. Carplay/AA was the loose successor to that; users had some agency with app selection, but GM has famously torpedoed that solution. Their arguments were so bad that it was almost transparent that they did it just so they could try and get subscription revenue from customers for functions Carplay provides out of the box.

Now, you might reasonably argue that a means of returning to user-replaceable infotainment head units is basically what you were getting at with "secure mount"...but my point is that these shouldn't be mutually exclusive. A stock stereo *should* have Carplay/AA, along with a means of replacing it if the user deems fit...but i do think it's reasonable to ask for both - base trims of econobox cars include Carplay; it shouldn't require aftermarket hardware to implement, and the owner shouldn't have to be stuck with a panhandling screen if they *don't* buy an aftermarket stereo.