US policy doesn't get to dictate how websites operate in non US jurisdiction. The US acting like it gets to bully the rest world into doing whatever it wants is the whole issue at hand. That's the point: the trump admin wants to use US influence to intimidate, bully, and antagonize other countries by disrespecting their sovereignty.
Debatable. The US is still largely functioning as a union under the constitution, for the time being. Expect a real constitutional crisis to have entire states reject the authority of the federal government.
I think what we have right now are some cracks, or signs.
Yes, but also no. Older hardware is less power efficient, which is a cost in its own right, but also decreases backup runtime during power failure, and generates more noise and heat. It also lacks modern accelerated computing, like ai cores or hardware video encoders or decoders, if you are running those appd. Not to mention lack of nvme support, or a good NIC.
For me a good compromise is to recycle hardware upgrades every 4-5 years. A 19 year old computer? I would not bother.
If that's too direct, just mention something fun you did recently and let them decide to respond in kind. If they don't open up to you like that in the slightest, after you open up to them in such a small way, then you should just take the hint and go talk to someone else.
How? It's very simple you see. This is "legal" and "constitutional" when ordinary citizens do absolutely nothing to uphold the constitution and laws or hold those responsible for doing so accountable.
I already stopped buying from Amazon. You can buy exactly the same Chinese crap from AliExpress for half the price. Bonus points for not funding Bezos' attempts to undermine democracy in our own backyard. Just gotta be a bit more patient, but that's an easy price to pay.
This opinion is so backwards, it's actually impressive.
The purpose of a locked boot system is to control what the device does as much as possible, which intentionally, or incidentally (it makes no difference) means the manufacturer and only the manufacturer gets to decide how much privacy they get to invade.
In practice, patents don't really restrict the availability of a technology, from a consumer perspective. Patent holders regularly licence the use of patents. The only purpose of a patent is to fund research costs by creating some guaranteed revenue stream for the patentor.
The only time what you describe happens is if a company ignores its prime directive to generate profit. Such benevolent companies are a very rare thing.
For the public, this probably sounds like a strange and non prestigious reason to pursue a career in law, but for lawyers, dealing with people's idiosyncrasies is one of the juiciest and most interesting parts of the job and a big reason to be drawn to the profession to begin with.
You say that like it's everyone else's job to do that. So long as you (and by extension everyone else) carry that attitude, nothing is going to change.
I feel like the very situation you lament is caused precisely because of people with your attitude who basically just roll over and give up on making this country better. I have no sympathy for apathy.
Are you here because you believe in something and actually want to see it happen, or are you here just to stroke your own ego. Ain't nobody got time for that second part. Get real.
US policy doesn't get to dictate how websites operate in non US jurisdiction. The US acting like it gets to bully the rest world into doing whatever it wants is the whole issue at hand. That's the point: the trump admin wants to use US influence to intimidate, bully, and antagonize other countries by disrespecting their sovereignty.