"The term crown has been used, for who knows how long,"

This isn't actually a refutation of the claim that Apple's usage or the term is grandiose. It would be a refutation of a claim that Apples usage is original, but no one made that claim.

a) I made no such assumption.
b) The existence of such a pricing scheme is irrelevant. It still would not *oblige* the dealership to contract with them rather than some other business. The easiest way to not offer something to the public is to not enter into a contract that offers it to the public.

"A business has every right to put an EV charger outside for THEIR customers. "

A business has no obligation to employ a contractor that lists the service for public use that they do not want to offer for public use. They knew the terms that EVgo offered and could have declined their offer.

"people stuck in their ways"

Except there are things where Tivo is objectively superior, even when Tivo no longer makes the thing. E.g.
A remote where the more frequent operations have bigger buttons that you can find by touch.
A "Now Playing" list which is actually a list, that is ordered by recency and removes things you've watched.
Fast Forward that still shows the captioning as well as showing the video in motion rather than a still from when you started the fast forward possibly with a small window showing the advanced position (but sometimes not!).

Thanks for letting us know that you could not be bothered to read the article, which already says "It is important to note that this was an observational study, meaning it can only show an association between higher xylitol levels and cardiovascular events, rather than proving that xylitol directly caused them, and further research is needed."

"Any study of this type should be immediately suspect,"

No, any study of this type is A NECESSARY FIRST STEP. While correlation is not a sufficient condition, it is NECESARY condition. There's no point in looking for a causal link between factors that do not correlate.

" where do you think the money comes from for those raises"

If the business is run by capitalists, it comes from productivity.

The problem is that the median businessman has no idea how capitalism works, and at the 90th percentile they are actively opposed.

"submits it to Debian"

It is nonsensical to suggest that you can submit to Debian privately. The accuser then says "Here is my original code; this submission which everyone can access equally, is a copy." There can be debate over whether the submission is a copy or not, but the existence of the submission and the existence of the accuser's original is are ground truths.

For the use of AI case, the accuser says "this submission used AI" and then what? If someone saw the submitter use an AI that is direct evidence, but if the accuser says it seems like AI that unfalsifiable.

"This is not any more difficult than policing licensing terms is today. "

It significantly more difficult that policing licensing terms. Any act that would break licensing terms is an act that is necessarily done publicly. While there would be dispute about whether the act violates a license, it would be easy to reach consensus that the act took place. E.g. in a questions of incompatible licenses, there may be argument over whether a submission's license in compatible with the projects it would be plainly visible to all what license it was submitted with.

Using an AI tool is done privately, so there would be a lot of allegations that cannot be connected to evidence. Compare to accusations of text with em-dashes having been AI-generated, with the writers protesting that they've used em-dashes all along.

"It should be about spelling out the rules, then banishing people who break them"

Rules that can only be poorly enforced become rules that are arbitrarily enforced, which in turn erodes respect for the system of rules as a whole.

"No car on the market should ever have its functionality dependent on another device. "

Is there any car that actually does depend on another device?

We like the moon 'cause it is close to us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The *stated* purpose of the 1Gbps target was to track the rate of spread of higher speeds to find where there are regulatory obstacles. By definition, you need to start with a value is is not available in most places.

The only reason to oppose the target is if you oppose removing regulatory obstacles. Apparently Brendan Carr is adding opposition to removing regulatory obstacles to his opposition to free speech.

This is just more fodder for America's favorite podcast-within-a-podcast "Brendan Carr Is A Dummy".

Free as in speech (maximal rights)
Free as in beer (zero price)
Free as in yacht (capex vs opex)
Free as in mattress (value below price)

Now, free as in Comcast (worthless, do not want)

What was Yann LeCun's reaction when you proved him wrong about Logic Theorist?

"Well then what is the fucking point of all this? "

If the only use you get out of your driver's license is for traffic stops, then it is not useful for you.

However, in the real world the driver's license has been overloaded with non-driver uses attached to identification: buying alcohol, entering a courthouse or airport, etc.

(*Theoretically*, digital identification could limit the requestor to only the data they are entitled to request, e.g. if used for buying alcohol it could provide age verification but not your address. )

"Why not solve this at the supply side and add more power plants?"

And I mentioned elsewhere: the minimum generation capacity you need at your plants, and therefor your fixed costs, is a function of peak usage, but the minimum price per unit you need to earn to pay for that capacity is a function of average usage.

Building more capacity that is only needed for the peak will push up the average price you need to charge to break even. At some point your customers start cutting back on their average demand causing a price death spiral.