And you clowns don't think that your OS is a fragile pile of crap if it's that easy to fuck up?

Seriously? Do you even know what the job of an OS _is_ ?

The phenomenon of "rich getting richer" is characteristic of all free markets during times of economic health. It's an easy thing to demonize but simple practical realities make this inescapable.

At its essence, acquiring wealth requires making investments (which could include building businesses just as much as buying ones that already exist). Making such investments requires capital. People who don't have any can maybe get a business loan, but that puts a harsh upper limit on how much they can earn from the investment. Wealthy people have a lot more that they can invest, and so they stand to make a lot more from their investments.

Wealth is THE ladder to attaining wealth. Ordinary jobs are just a means of keeping bread on the table while building initial capital to get in on the investing. Some specialist jobs can pay pretty well but not well enough to make the kind of money that we associate with the super rich.

The thing is, if we take away the option to "get richer," then people who have capital won't invest it, which means they won't be creating jobs or delivering value, which leads to the downward spiral of unemployment, deflation, and economic collapse (Exactly like what we saw throughout the 1930s). So if we treat "the rich getting richer" as some sort of problem that needs to be solved, we risk breaking the backbone of the economy, and pushing nearly everyone into poverty.

We could possibly remove some of the legal loopholes that allow the super-rich to skip out on taxes, but that is supremely hard to do since the super rich hold tremendous political power, and can independently lobby such attempts into oblivion. Even under democratic presidents, such efforts get no traction.

So for now, "the rich getting richer" isn't really a sign of economic mismanagement so much as "standard operating procedure" for a functioning free market.

Is this different than the brain state when watching a movie or play?

"Suspension of Disbelief" is an ancient concept.

Not to defend the technology but the summary sounds like confirmation of the null hypothesis.

The Play Store shows it as unavailable for my LineageOS devices. Available on my stock tablets and GrapheneOS devices.

A video player more strict than banking apps. OK, China, that'll help in your infowar.

You are right. A screen that does not replace physical controls is a nice thing.

And I agree. Any vehicle that doesn't have a proper dashboard in front of me, where I need to look to the side to see important information, is a no-buy for me.

yes, it's a short list. But it's a start and a kind of "red line". I am hopeful they move that line to include other things that people use while driving all the time.

Are big screens nice? Sure, yes.

But if I have a choice between good physical controls and a big touch screen, I'll take the buttons and switches any day, thank you.

My 10 year old BMW has voice commands and a map that's always been more than enough for me. Sure, it's not as large, but while driving I don't want a big map - I want an indicator that tells me "next turn left in 500m" - and I have that, not on the main display but right in front of me on the dashboard. Newer models have it on a HUD.

Nothing in what you wrote makes a LARGE screen necessary.

They don't have to be better. They just have to be competing for the same ad money and users.

If eliminating homicide was the only effect the cameras had, I would consider it. But the cameras also enable all kinds of harmful abuse, as has been reported many times right here on slashdot.

Most crime, including violent crime, is a consequence of poverty driving people to desperation. Maybe we could find other ways of bringing that down. Like better education for the poorest areas and other forms of assistance that get people working again and eliminate the desperation. It might not be easy, but it's surely better than making ourselves so extremely vulnerable to the kinds of abuses that mass surveillance enables.

It's time YouTube gets some actual competition. Maybe it'll force them to revert some of the enshittification it's been going through. The crap is near unusable these days.

I don't know a single person who ever said that they want more or bigger touchscreens in their car.

Quite the opposite. I want physical controls and so do most people I've talked to. This is a car, not an iPad. Most of it I should be able to operate without taking my eyes off the road. And a touchscreen doesn't offer that.

In fact, Euro NCAP agrees. If you want a 5-star rating, you need physical controls.

The only people who want touchscreens are the car manufacturers, because it's cheaper and easier.

You seem to have confused my post with someone else's. Specifically:

"but other systems are worse so you should be happy with what we have"

I never said nor implied "you should be happy with what we have."

criticizing the current system and calling for change is the equivalent of lobbying for some other system

I never said nor implied that calling for any change is lobbying for some other system.

You're making a number of assumptions

No I'm not, you are reading into my post a whole lot of things that I didn't say and don't agree with.

First you are assuming that the system you have is the system you think it is.

What does this even mean? Are you trying to say that America isn't actually a Capitalism? Without some elaboration, your statement doesn't make any sense.

Second you are assuming that it cannot be made better or changed any way,

No I am not! I absolutely think that we can and should perpetually monitor and modify it as needs arise.

Third, you are assuming that the system you have today is the same system you had 10, 20, 100, or 200 years ago.

No I am not. Where in the world are you even getting this? A huge number of economic changes have happened over the past 200 years. I know this as well as anyone.

For an increasing percentage of Americans, life is getting worse and worse financially...

Your final paragraph is a total topic change seemingly stated as an argument. Or something. All I did was answer a specific question from rsilvergun. It wasn't my intention to write an essay on how we solve the issues related to wealth inequality in America.

"Socialism" is a broad word that refers to an entire family of different systems. It's not "one thing," and there isn't a single definition for it. There is just a loose group of common elements shared by all the different things that share the label, the main one being collective control over the means of production. (see here for more info).

So it isn't reasonable to say that this is "the best system" without specifying which version you are referring to and citing specific places that have fully implemented it for a long time and show signs of sustainable thriving.

Incidentally, Capitalism is, at its essence, "private ownership of the means of production" (which is to say, people can own businesses). If you allow this, then what you have is Capitalism (possibly with other regulations on the side). If you don't allow this, then what you have is not capitalism. Maybe you were thinking of allowing private ownership of some businesses but not others? Or something else?

We seem to be in a parallel to Rural Electrification now.

If someone lives five miles from the nearest connection, currently on 100A AC and POTS, is the limited budget better spent on running five miles of fiber or dropping off a satellite terminal?

They'll be going from either 3Mbps DSL to 300Mbps satellite or 800Mbps fiber.

If we had unlimited money I'd say fiber almost everywhere. But that isn't realistic.

The flip side is some of these rulings which ought to be applied to edge cases may well be applied to areas where FTTH is entirely reasonable and achievable.

Government almost always sucks at applying broad rules without subtlety at both the median and the far sigmas.

I live in an area where welfare broadband is offered for about $15/mo for about 60Mbps. Frankly I could live with that almost all the time. I do download some massive datasets every few months but my smoothed average is probably 2% of my max.

But those welfare programs exist because society has decided that some Internet is required for participation so there is some responsibility to provide.

The bigger risk is probably dual-use dangers. Ukraine has been using Starlink for terrorist attacks and while Musk has said he cut them off the Russian FM has warned that Russia will take out the Starlink constellation if it continues because apparently it is.

So we don't run fiber and then Starlink goes away, and then what?

There are also ice storms, hurricanes, tornados, wildfires, etc. that can take out landines for months so having a few satellite terminals in an area would be more antifragile.

FCC is seemingly treating this as simple when it's complex.