I know you are reading this.

Some apps do work properly in iOS 26 that have been fully optimized...basically just Youtube since they apparently have a large market share of users not on the latest and greatest devices.

Everything else, including Apple's own native apps, have GLARING UI errors. Try getting search to work properly in Apple Mail and you'll see it (it will only use half the screen). Try using face ID consistently (it will go to black screen sometimes and freeze up). Count how many buttons in 3rd party apps have weird whitespace around them (tons).

This is not the Steve Jobs legacy and is basically enshittification by people who want to justify their roles at Apple. Customers often look to me for my take and I tell them not to upgrade.

The voting age should be reduced so children can take action when adults restrict their access to information.

Do you mean they got tired of young men dying?

Your ID suggests you might be familiar with Nadar's "Unsafe at Any Speed".

We're in a bad place culturally when we treat unnecessary death - which affects other people both in terms of tax dollars per crash and whoever else is involved in the crash - as something which is just a cost of doing business.

People were tricked into accepting automobile deaths as just the cost of doing business, and the entire business of traffic engineering is dedicated to explaining away those deaths as accidents. Wes Marshall PhD PE published Killed by a Traffic Engineer in 2024 which explains a lot of this. Think about it: if there is a death on an escalator, it results in huge inquiries, lawsuits, and extensive investigation to ensure it never happens again. This does not happen with automobile crashes in most cases, as the driver is usually blamed rather than the engineering which makes most roads unsafe at any speed.

SCOTUS ruled that

I didn't ask for SCOTUS' opinion.

I took a look at a couple of your links and they don't meet the requirements I laid out. I thought you would fail, and you did.

Read a few of the letters and such written by those that founded the USA, they'd disagree that there's no connection between, as an example, the freedom to speak one's mind and carry arms in public.

Then post a link to one of the letters that says (1) gun ownership should be an individual right rather than a collective right, and (2) that whether it's an individual or collective right should not be left to the states to decide.

I adjusted my TV to make everything a little brighter, knowing it might blow out some of the highlights but that's fine. I think directors new to HDR just don't know how to use it, they're exposing for the highlights and ignoring the shadows.

Good god. It is people like you who are making workplaces safe for SJWs rather than people who get shit done.

Will it be quieter than all the stupid rich people helicopters? Because that would be the only benefit here to the common man.

In my world, I realize that 10 percent of people are SJW crybabies, and I do everything I can to avoid them. Managing people to produce amazing products is HARD WORK. It often takes flamboyant, offensive, exciting, and interesting personalities from all walks of life to provide that type of management and to take the risks necessary to both attract passionate people and keep others away.

Minisplit heat pump systems are changing this, LA is a great spot to install them.

Who is the supreme arbiter of what is fact and not?

Moderators, who value civility over truth. Who tolerate trolls and punish those who call them trolls because name calling is "uncivil." Who, as MLK said, are "more devoted to 'order' than to justice."

They try to claim they aren't the arbiters of what is fact and what is not but their moderation powers prove otherwise. They try to claim neutrality, but that's a delusion:

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject." --John Stuart Mill, 1867 inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews

If the exemption limit is 15k, you can increase your total income by up to 15k by getting a job, any job. You can further reduce or eliminate the perverse incentive by (I'm updating my suggestion here) not clawing benefits back dollar for dollar past the exemption limit, but perhaps at a rate of .50 per dollar,

Then you would be working for half pay. That brings us back to where "entering low-paid work causes there to be no significant increase in total income".

We should distinguish our definition of welfare trap then. I took it to mean the strictly economic aspect, whereby getting a job that pays as much a or slightly more than one receives on welfare would actually result in a net loss to the person as a result of added costs associated with working.

Using the Wiki's definition, it's not where getting a job results in a net loss but where "entering low-paid work causes there to be no significant increase in total income...and this can create a perverse incentive to not pursue a better paying job."

How exactly would UBI solve the welfare trap? By the standards you're holding me to, if anyone decides not to work in-spite of getting UBI they're still in the trap.

Except that a UBI doesn't "create a perverse incentive to not pursue a better paying job." No perverse incentive=no trap.