Does it actually bog down a reasonably-speced computer? I don't think it does, I think the sluggishness is just from the sheer volume of stuff that has to be downloaded, and the inefficient way it's downloaded. And the reason the web devs don't notice the awfulness is (a) their browsers have 98% of it cached and (b) they have a GigE (or 10 GigE) connection to the server. They certainly don't have computers faster than your M4.

I think you didn't understand what this feature is. It's pretty much the opposite of annoying, and it has no effect at all on bandwidth consumption. Though I suppose when devs get used to their sites seeming to load faster they'll bloat them up even more...

>"How exactly would they serve us the ads?"

With text and static images.

>"For example, a website operator could make each page load blank other than a notice to the effect "Tap or click to view 'Title of Article' on Name of Site."

Yeah, I have seen some of that already. Some web developers are just plain evil.

What's more, you really have to know what you're doing to coax it into re-using code, rather than rewriting the same functionality with each prompt.

>"It can buffer without playing."

True. Anything is better than autoplaying. Although I would prefer delaying buffering as well. I don't care that it might take 2 seconds longer to start a video, later.

No video (or animated image) should ever load/autoplay unless the user interacts with that element, indicating he/she wants to play it. Same with audio.

That is how I have Firefox set up. I can't imagine why anyone would want something different, unless the user wants to whitelist the site (like I do with my video cameras, since I do want those to play automatically).

I have lots of older machines with 4GB of RAM running the latest Linux Mint and perform just fine with Cinnamon + Firefox + LibreOffice for casual use and browsing (as long as it is an SSD). The majority of RAM is eaten by whatever web browser you are using and by how much. That is what will usually dictate your RAM requirements under Linux far more than the OS (unless you are gaming or doing something major like video editing).

4GB is a bit lean, and has been, so I do agree 6GB is more realistic. But running MS-Windows 11 with 4GB? Good luck with that!

>"I've never bought into poster's security through obscurity claims. There are plenty enough Linux machiners out there, [...]"

Multiple things can be true at once. I do think Linux is inherently more secure AND that being more obscure provides additional protection in some ways.

>"As for the update process, here is a reason Windows forces their updates, and Linux and MacOS allow you to install them at your leisure. People don't avoid Linux and MacOS updates because the computer works afterwards."

My experience with decades of Linux updates over hundreds machines across various hardware and distros:

1) Linux updates come/arrive faster.
2) Linux updates install much faster.
3) Linux updates do not break anything.
4) Linux updates rarely change the look or feel of the OS or desktop.
5) Linux updates do not bloat up the system with unnecessary crap or things I never wanted.
6) Linux updates allow me to choose when to install.
7) Linux updates never need a reboot to install or the system is in some limp mode.
8) Linux updates rarely need a reboot to activate.
9) Linux updates never force a reboot to occur.
10) Linux updates do not disturb a running system.
11) Linux updates don't change my system settings to favor some company's agenda.
12) Linux updates (or upgrades) never require registration, permission, cost, or licensing (on open platforms).
13) Linux updates (on open platforms) are not being tracked or monitored by some entity somewhere.
14) Linux updates failing to install/finish is extraordinarily rare.

>"Your experience is not an indication of a good practice."

My experience is normally updating frequently. But it is still on my schedule, when I choose to do it. I wouldn't say it is bad practice, especially since I am aware when the rare high-priority update is released. The few that are not updated that I mentioned are those that are intentionally isolated (and are safe regardless).

>"Linux is somewhat sheltered because of its low adoption as a desktop operating system."

That is true. But it is also generally more secure, outside of its obscurity. And updates usually come out much faster. And most do not require rebooting.

>"What a shit show Microsoft has become."

I don't remember it NOT being. Although I guess it depends on comparisons to which point in the show.

And I thought I heard they were 'listening to their users' and trying to undo some of their "mistakes". Hmm. Any word yet of removing forced cloud logins? Ads in the menus? Changing browser choice/settings without permission? Removing artificial hardware requirements? Opting out of "AI"?

>"These days, it's literally not even *safe* to fail to upgrade to the latest version of whatever software.[...]The days of upgrading when you want to, are a relic of the 1990s."

Seems to work fine for Linux. I update only when I choose to on all my machines. Granted, I don't let most of them get much behind. But there are those that are intentionally left alone, and need to be, for various complex reasons.

Last time I checked, my vehicle is not a legal entity that can be cited for infractions. Whatever person is sitting behind the wheel of that vehicle is not known by a camera. I can't believe these things haven't been totally obliterated in court. In my state, the tickets you get from these things are actually from 3rd parties contractors who run them, and try to sound very official, but they are not actual summons through a court.

To what are you alluding?

Basically everyone who lives in the area or studies the climate or hydrology would tell you that you're insane.

More like a once-in-a-millennium event. Though I suspect it's going to be considerably more common going forward.

Deserts have some amount of normal precipitation, too. And when you get a lot less than normal, that's called a drought. Yes, even in a desert.