towerful

You kinda made my point with the whole "try and find another operator to send 2400bps to" part. The digital communication is not conventional, it's revolutionary.
Analog communication is conventional. And radios and their components aren't exotic.

Yes, modern communication is fantastic. But analog will still be more reliable

Eventually you will get used to it.
You have 3 options.

1. normalise to OSX shortcuts (and concile your Linux shortcuts to those). You are more likely to encounter an osx machine "in the wild", and if you have to get a new Mac then everything is instantly comfortable. Linux is also easier to customise.

2. normalise to your Linux shortcuts. Figure out how to script osx to adopt those shortcuts (so you can quickly adopt a new work machine), and accept that you won't always be able to use those shortcuts (like when using a loaner or helping someone).

3. accept the few years of confusing Osx Vs Linux shortcuts, and learn both.

Option 3 is the most versatile. Takes ages, and you will still make mistakes.
Option 2 is the least versatile, but is the fastest to adopt.
Option 1 is fairly versatile, but probably has the longest adoption/pain period.

If OSX is in your future, the it's option 1.
Option 3 is probably the best.
If you are never going to interact with any computer/server other than your own & other Linux machines, then option 2. Just make sure that every preference/shortcut you change is scriptable or at least documented and that the process is stored somewhere safe

It's all from Latin mintus Vs minuta.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/minute

My-noot for small.
Min-ut for time.

I don't think smart phones are conventional communications. The are smart. They are still the "tech of tomorrow".
Smart phones use conventional communications to do very clever things. But those clever things are range limited and require specialised equipment. They also have absolutely no "hackability" without specialised equipment (easy to get, sure... But still pretty much single purpose)

AM is literally a couple caps, inductors, resistors (edit: and diode) then an amplifier (a couple transistors and resistors). And the range of lower frequency radio waves is (or can be) phenomenal.
It's just that it takes some experience to operate on these frequencies, and their bandwidth is limited.

Smart phones do away with the experience requirements, and trade higher frequencies & higher data rates for range (and I guess trade digital encoding for simplicity)

I see parallels to software.
People are nervous to "side loading apps" on their phone, but have no issues downloading and installing an exe on windows.
Smart phones give you the "this is how" kind of experience, and abstract away the sheer amount of technology they leverage. Which is amazing, and is what makes them smart!
But the underlying technology is phenomenal. And I feel it's a shame that the majority of people don't have any understanding of "installing an app" or similar (like calling internet access "WiFi".... 2 distinct things!)

Zelda TOTK?

Classic "leopards eating face".
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Leopards_Eating_People%27s_Faces_Party

Nononononono, controlling the weather is how democrats keep power.
Like when Trump redirected that hurricane (with a Sharpie), but it continued on its predicted path. Fucking democrats, man.

(I hope this is obviously dripping with sarcasm, incase not...

/s
Trump & a lot of republicans taking the spotlight are idiots. Humans can control the weather: unfortunately that's from greenhouse gasses and global warming)

As a hobby developer, I feel like I'm just gluing libraries together to get what I want.

PowerPoint actually has decent live captioning built in.
Just have a green slide, then chromakey it out.

There are plenty of web services that do a similar thing for a fee.

It's pretty serendipitous, actually.
The past month I've done a somewhat deep dive into LoRa for a project.
I ultimately dismissed it due to the data rates, but for simple remote controls or for sensors - things that report a couple bytes - it seems awesome.
I'm sure you can squeeze higher data rates out of it, but when I evaluated it I decided to go with a hardwired network link (I had to have stability, dropped info wasn't an option. But the client had a strong preference for wireless)

WiFi uses BPSK/QPSK/OFDM/OFDMA modulation.
LoRa uses CSS modulation.

This is about hacking WiFi hardware to make WiFi modulated signal intelligible to a receiver expecting CSS modulation, and have the WiFi hardware demodulate a CSS signal.
Thus making WiFi chips work with LoRa chips.

LoRa doesn't care about the carrier frequency.
So the fact that it's LoRa at 2.4ghz doesn't matter. It's still LoRa.

I'm sure there will be a use for this at some point.
Certainly useful for directly interfacing with LoRa devices from a laptop.
I feel that anyone actually deploying LoRa IoT would be working at a lower level than "throw a laptop at it" kinda thing

It's LoRa on 2.4ghz.
It's just that chirp signals are easy to decode from a lot of noise.
And they don't really affect most other modulation techniques. I think you can even have multiple CSS coded signals on the same frequency, as long as they are configured slightly differently.

LoRa is incredibly resilient.
It's just really really slow