grue

It has to do with EVs in the sense that (practically speaking) every single one of them is new enough to be infested with surveillance, so (unlike with ICE) there's no option to avoid it by going with an old vehicle.

Also, nobody gives a shit about new ICE cars, so there's no point in mentioning them when they weren't within the realm of consideration to begin with.

The criticism is of all new cars, not just EVs, but EVs are the only new cars that would've otherwise been worth considering.

Or in other words, what you wrote is a lie because old ICE cars without surveillance exist, but there is practically* no such equivalent for EVs.

Anyway, to go along with my old non-surveillance-infested cars:

• my phone runs GrapheneOS
• my computers run GNU/Linux
• my TV is dumb
• my media is selfhosted on Jellyfin
• the only "smart" devices I use are flashed with ESPHome and connect to selfhosted Home Assistant
• Hell, even my e-bike uses a standalone controller and does not pair with my phone or connect to an "app!"

Checkmate, troll.

But go on, explain how none of that matters and we should all be little bitches like you who just willingly bend over for the corpo-stalkers. Explain how your bullshit comment is anything other than fucking worthless doomerism.

Man, I wish he had that much self-awareness of his lack of faculties!

In this case, it ought to work exactly the opposite of how you think: a Congressional resolution is supposed to be the only thing that gives Trump authority to engage in war to begin with, so the only thing vetoing one ought to be able to accomplish is to remove that authority. There isn't supposed to be such a thing as as resolution disapproving of the President's unconstitutional unilateral action; if anything, what Congress just did should be treated like revoking its prior approval and thus not be vetoable.

@ChonkyOwlbear makes a very good point: the idea that the burden is on Congress to disapprove of the war and that Trump can veto their disapproval is completely ass-backwards, if you really think about it, and its absurd that the media and/or general public is treating it as anything remotely resembling business as usual.

(This isn't meant to be a criticism of @Andronyx individually, BTW. I can't blame them for falling for the same logical sleight of hand as almost everybody else.)

All the right-wing organizations are named in doublespeak like that. Being dishonest is core to their ideology.

Made my own version in GIMP, to get rid of 'new text document' and avoid watermarks:

(Not sure which font to use, so I picked a monospaced one for added 'cyber'. Also, here's a clean base image if anybody wants to do better.)

I agree with your overall point, but have one quibble:

Also, I mean, sure, satellite internet providers have been around for 30 years and each one had a period where the future looked bright before upkeep costs or technical issues hammered them into oblivion, but… mhhh…

Pre-Starlink satellite internet's future never looked bright because the latency and upload speeds always sucked. Having a swarm of satellites in a low orbit constantly handing off the connections is genuinely a huge improvement compared to having a few satellites all the way out at geostationary. It's just a shame that it's got the deal-breaker of being run by a nazi.

"Just as" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, IMO. Can they be subverted against the people they are supposed to serve? Of course. Is it as likely as a for-profit corporation doing it? Hell no, I'd say.

You monster.

Maybe there's room for compromise, but there is absolutely zero reason to concede such things in advance. The baseline expectation is that every device should be running Free Software and fully respect its owner's property rights, full stop.

If you instead approach the issue with the casual attitude that "oh, proprietary isn't so bad if it doesn't connect to the internet" the compromise after negotiations ends up favoring proprietary tyrants way more than you would've been okay with.