qyron

That is utter stupidity.

What that proposes is to hold someone, anyone, guilty by default, with no proof.

Unless a lot as changed, they do care.

Every single laptop and any prebuilt computer I find in the market comes pre installed with a Windows.

A good friend approached me to install a Linux on a brand new machine and just to make sure we called the customer support line, informing there was interest to return the windows license, as the software would not be used.

The reply we got was that by removing the software the warranty of the equipment would be null and void. The option was to ship the computer to their maintenance provider and have it removed, with costs presented at end for labour.

Why can't I state that some place is a hell hole where no one should be stuck but, nonetheless, state the people living there - or at least a good majority - are actually good people?

Considering the stain politics is for the majority of places nowadays, with the growing effort for extremists/conservatives/right wingers/religious zealots trying to roll back civilizational conquests attained in least 50 to 80 years, it's not hard to infer that a very small group can and will make life terrible for those unaligned with their views.

So, where is the contradiction?

You can dislike a place and have nothing against people living it.

Considering the mentioned locations are, boiled down, hell holes run mostly by angry white men, I'd risk the living conditions in those places is due to systemic racism and other outdated views on what a society should be.

People living in those those areas are victims and most probably poverty blocked to even consider to leave, regardless of melanin skin levels, although in the US being a shade over milk white is a detriment for having peaceful life.

Stating those places are a bad choice to live is not racism: is stating a fact.

Being slightly magnetic could prove useful: never again would cutlery fall from your hands!

And being capable of interfacing with 5G antennas? Becoming my own personal signal booster?

ah, foiled again...

I've read a few texts from the same source and they read quite childish.

It felt like reading essays from very young children: there is some degree of coherence, some information is there but it lacks actual advancement on the subject.

This wasn't one or two isolated cases: it was a race to the stores.

I was a kid then and my grandparents got caught in the wave and bought more lamps that they required to light the entire house. Which later proved to be of bad quality and aided me in making their transition to energy saving bulbs.

People would line up in front of stores to get the precious, precious bulbs, making the exact same sort of conversation and observations we can read throughout this thread, criticizing government and politics in general.

The store owners would chime in and add fuel to the fire, stating a lot of people would lose their jobs, as the factories would close (cute fact: there was precisely zero factories for those products in the entire country).

People are stubborn and will not change ways unless no other option is available and even then grudgingly, while companies only shift practices if forced, be it by force of law or by cash flow and profit goals.

Governments enforcing positive laws and regulations, even if unpopular, are necessary measures to move things forward in a modern society.

I'm sorry, I'm not following your reasoning. Can you elaborate, please?

No really. A lot of people, even when shown proof, out of simple spite just double down on their position.

When energy saving and early LED bulbs started to be deployed in my country, while the fade out of incandescent bulbs was put in place, we had runs for buying every single incandescent bulb available. The change was not welcome. Even if changing meant real, objective, tangible savings.

People would put in large orders for bulbs, arguing they wanted to "have proper lighting as long has they lived". Luckily, the stocks quickly ran out and some distributors simply refused to pass the stocks to the market.

A government cutting off a product is not overreach: it's forcing change that otherwise would not happen, for the better.