A majority (76%) of ER doctors admitted that they did not want to need to use the ER, and 63% of morticians said they did not want to have to make use of their own services personally. And only 14% of Slashdot editors admitted that they felt they needed to use an editor before accepting a submission.
High temps hurt performance, but no jet magically loses the ability to fly at one specific temperature.
I predict that many jets lose the ability to fly at the specific temperature of 600C, the point at which aluminum melts.
But the point that the certification extends only up to a certain temperature is the right one. If you can't predict that the runway you are using is long enough for you to successfully take off, your commercial flight isn't supposed to try. This is intended to protect the flying public from commercial flight providers who want to push the envelope a bit too far.
And the "magically" is because the effects are asymptotic. For example, the flight ceiling for an aircraft is the altitude at which the predicted maximum rate of climb is 0. That doesn't mean you can't fly above that altitude, however. It just means that you aren't doing it by an unassisted or unaccellerated climb.
They're not saying anyone has to use Walmart's servers, only that they can't use Amazon's. But there's two problems with this story in the first place:
Walmart doesn't have "partners". They have suppliers who have the hobnail boots on their throat to provide what Walmart wants.
And both links are garbage click bait for WSJ (paywalled) and Fortune (nearly blank page.)
I blame the bribed local governments that keep giving those cablecos monopolies
I blame the residents of those local governments who have not reported the monopolies to the federal enforcement agencies. It has been against federal law for anyone to issue a monopoly to a cable company for at least 20 years, and any local government that has done so needs to have a visit from DOJ or FTC.
And, of course, the residents who keep electing the people taking the bribes share in that blame. You do have evidence of bribes before making the claim, right? Proving an illegal monopoly is easy -- it's in the franchise. Proving bribes is a bit harder.
In other words, they fought tooth and nail to stop or rollback net neutrality rules, but now want to cite those very same rules in an effort to force the federal government to take precedent over states.
Of course. If you are going to make them play by your set of rules, then they will play by your set of rules, especially when those rules benefit them in some area. If you've stepped up and said "we are the only entity authorized to make rules for you", wouldn't you expect them to object to new sets of rules being implemented by someone else? It would be silly to expect anything less.
Cable (or Internet service in general) has a natural monopoly in the last mile.
I have two different kinds of "cable" running into my house, and wireless broadband wafting through the ether. All three are capable of streaming video. While traditional "cable TV" may have had a "natural monopoly", internet service does not and never has.
The economic monopoly that exists does so not because of a limited number of "last mile cables", but because of a limited number of last mile customers. Let's say a city has 10,000 possible customers, and 4,000 of them buy cable service. Any competitor who looks at that market first sees that 60% of the market has low interest in the product (or they'd be buying it already.) He might be able to entice some percentage of those to buy from him if his prices are low enough. Maybe. The other 40% are already buying from the incumbent, and maybe he can get 10% of those. The chances are, however, that as soon as he starts to compete, the incumbent will drop prices and he'll not get as many customers as he planned on. His costs will include not only the "last mile", but a physical presence in that city and costs for content and headend. If the city was smart, he's be providing free cable and internet to the schools and city offices, and several PEG (public, education, government) channels on his system at no cost.
In any case, the potential profit is very low, if any, so the incentive to compete is nil. THAT is where the monopoly comes from, and would still be there even if he had free access to any wire he wants. The pot is only so big, and it really is a zero sum game -- everyone splits the existing number of possible customers, and nobody gets to draw in new customers from outside that geographic area.
The first company to run the wires/fiber has an enormous financial advantage over anyone else.
This is like claiming that the local grocery store has a natural monopoly because they've already spent the money installing coolers and checkstands while any new competitors will have to spend that money now to enter the market. That's not "monopoly".
The end result is those de-facto monopolies were converted to legal monopolies,
No. You have it backwards. Cable franchises started out being issued as exclusive, to lure the cable companies into building facilities. What used to be legal monopolies NO LONGER EXIST. It is against federal law for a municipality to issue an exclusive franchise, and it has been that way for 20 years. The law is quite explicit -- if a city issues a franchise to one company they must issue one to another company that is willing to meet the same requirements.
that monopoly agreement with your local government has some requirements for the cable company.
Every franchise agreement has terms. You can have a contract to issue a franchise without it creating a legal monopoly.
your local government does not have much leverage due to the natural monopoly.
No local government can demand that a company provide service to its residents. They can demand that a company provide services in a specific way if they are to provide them at all, but they cannot force Comcast, e.g., to provide service to the residents as a way of creating competition for TWC. They could not demand that Comcast provide service even if the city owned every inch of the last mile and gave let Comcast access it for free.
You mean Desiderio Alberto Arnaz y de Acha III, who used the name Desi Arnaz on stage, who married Lucille Desiree Ball, whose stage name was Lucille Ball? That "Cuban dude" and that "Lucille McGillicuddy" (the character's maiden name played by Lucille Ball)? Who then formed Desi-Lu studios as a contraction/combination of their first names?
Is that fair? Of course not. It should have been Lu-Desi, or "ludes" for short. Everyone knows she was a much better actor than he was, and that's even if you remember that she was an actress and not an actor. She was still a better actor.
The first fire marshal that walks into your store and can't get a cell signal will have his inspectors shut you down. Just to fuck with you.
You must live in a place where the fire marshals are petty, vindictive tyrants. I've been in plenty of stores where there is no cell signal and they're still open. Big cities, small cities, all over the place. I have no cell signal in the buildings where I work, all three of them, and I know that the fire marshals do inspections on a yearly basis. I guess around here they are more interested in doing their job instead of fucking with everyone. YMMV.
Perhaps they just accept the fact that the law does not require anyone to install cell repeaters in their buildings just so the FM can call his wife to tell her he'll be late for dinner. And that's also why the FD command vehicles all have vehicular repeaters around here, specific to the communications channels they need and use.
If you aren't "tonymus", then I don't care what point you think you were making, I was replying to something he said, not you.
I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made that...
If you are "tonymus" now posting as an AC for some reason, then perhaps you could have been a bit clearer that you were not worried about shopping in a Whole Foods by NOT BEING EXPLICIT in referring to doing price-checks WHILE SHOPPING IN WHOLE FOODS. You know:
I hope they don't block me trying to price check at a Whole Foods Market [msn.com] in the future.
Like I said, whether or not you want to admit you shop there, if you need to DO a price-check while shopping in a Whole Foods then you are very very unclear on the concept of Whole Foods. Every price check you do while in WF, if you are comparing WF to other places, will return the answer "cheaper somewhere else". If you are doing price checks while in a WF that doesn't involve WF, then why the hell are you doing them inside the WF? Wait until you are outside.
I'll bet the fire and police departments have something to say. Our coms don't work inside your building.
Fine. We'll install a passive repeater for you. Problem solved. Or you get to do your inspections when the sunshades are rolled up and the place will be flooded with your comms. And it still doesn't involve the FCC.
By the way, if your fire department doesn't have readily available a local repeater to deal with such issues, then your fire department is risking their fire fighter's lives. You're going to run into buildings all over the place that were built long enough ago that they don't pass modern comm channels.
I hope they don't block me trying to price check at a Whole Foods Market in the future.
If you need to do an online pricecheck to know that you can buy stuff a whole lot cheaper someplace else, then I doubt you've figured out how to use this newfangled webby thing in the first place. Or you've never shopped anyplace but Whole Foods.
Screw with cellular signals and you'll be answering to the FCC (at least in the USA).
The FCC has no say over the material used to build a building, much of which will block radio waves quite well. "Those metal screens over the windows are to block sunlight -- thus making the building green by saving on AC costs and part of our commitment to the environment. The copper mesh on the surface of the walls is part of the texturing process -- doesn't it look very nice? What was that, sir? You can't get a cell signal inside? Neither can I. Doesn't that suck?"
The last toner cart I ordered was an HP color and it was $240. If you think it is outrageous that a local physical store charges a 6% premium so you can walk in, look and handle the product, and get it right now, versus maybe getting it tomorrow sight-unseen, you're out of touch with the real world. (I'm still waiting for a second-day Amazon Prime delivery that was ordered on Tuesday, so I say "maybe".)
It was proper customer relations to charge the online price, but certainly not out of line for it to be a bit higher to start with in person.
That said, I don't think it's OK for public spaces to block radio signals (and, quite often, the law doesn't as well).
The inside of an Amazon brick and mortar store is not a public space, it is private property, and as an example they can call the police and have you "trespassed" for any number of reasons. I.e., kick you out permanently.
What law do you think covers creating a Faraday cage?
Android lets you disable factor apps, except in the rare cases the vendor hacks that feature out.
As I pointed out already, the survey of "factor" apps I made on my Samsung device showed less than 50% of them could be disabled. It isn't rare if more than 50% of the apps cannot be disabled.
Users can either have additional apps installed or if they don't want to use them, not have them installed.
Of course. But that means that any app that a user needs only occasionally must be reinstalled from scratch before it can be used for a short period of time, and then re-uninstalled. That's a lot more work that simply disabling/enabling/disabling an app. This difference seems to be lost on you. For example, the Nook app that wants to have five services running at all times so it can keep in constant contact with home base and monitor all usage has a huge amount of data installed in the form of content (or it can, depending on the user. Mine has.) To reinstall all that content is quite a bit of work and requires the internet. To disable the app means it won't run, but to get access to the content again requires no internet connection to redownload the content after reenabling it. It's just an on/off switch.
but that's how it works today.
Which is why I said it would be nice if we could do it, unlike those who have said that you can disable any app.
The functionality is effectively equivalent,
Except for the differences, yes, totally equivalent. The difference makes the difference.
even if you can't wrap your head around it.
I don't seem to be the one who cannot "wrap my head around" the differences, so why don't you just stop trying to be insulting? You do it so poorly.
Yes, you'd uninstall those, not disable them. Fucking idiots these days.
You clearly do not understand the difference between disabling an app and uninstalling them. As I said a couple of times now, it would be nice if we could disable any app LIKE YOU SAID WE CAN, but which in truth cannot be done. You are not in a good position to be using insult to make your point.
And let's not forget that the first version of the ban wasn't a ban on citizens of those countries travelling to the USA: it was a ban on Muslims from those countries travelling to the USA.
If that's the case.....yeah it's kinda stupid.
But since that wasn't the case, it is irrelevant. The OP lied. The ban was on immigrants and non-immigrants from those countries, period. It's pretty easy to find a copy of the original order. For example, here it is in its entirety. Section 3(c) is the relevant part. If I could copy it out of the EO under evince I would paste it here. It says nothing about Islam, Muslim, or religion in any way. The ban is based on the country of origin.
Taxes on Income (which the Really Rich do not pay) are not.
The statistics for tax payments show that the top one percent pays 24% of the federal, state, and local taxes which averages out to be 34% of their income, while the bottom 20% pays only 2% of the taxes using 19% of their income. In all metrics, "Really Rich" certainly do pay taxes.
The really rich only pay taxes on Realized gains, not on the value of the increase in the assets
They pay capital gains when the gain is realized, not when it appears "on the books" as a paper tiger. The poor also pay capital gains at the same time.
and even then are discounted heavily (as capital gains)
Social engineering, to promote investment. Investment is money that other people get to use while the "Really Rich" don't have access to it. And it's not just "Really Rich" who have stocks, etc. Those are parts of many many working people's retirement accounts. I have a retirement plan that consists mostly of stock and bond funds and I pay nothing at all in taxes on gains until I start accessing the money. Nor do I get to write off any losses. If you want to tax people on the paper profits for stocks and bonds at the time the paper profits are made, you are going to be hurting a very very large number of people who are not even close to the "Really Rich" that you don't like.
Hell, some places even tax the Electricity being produced by your solar panels, that never leaves your property.
Fascinating. What I've found by searching for this tax is that it is a personal property tax on the generation equipment, not a tax on the electricity it produces. This is like the personal property taxes on Rich People stuff that the poor people don't ever pay. The government cannot tax the actual electricity unless it is sold, at which point it has "left the property".
There are also some pretty high exemptions, like a lower cutoff of 1MW systems for solar. It is trivial to avoid those taxes.
And one bit more -- you said you can disable "any app". You cannot disable user-loaded apps. You can only uninstall them. Uninstall is not the same as disable.
Like I said, if you've been paying attention, " Instead of 'uninstall' you'll see a button to uninstall updates".
And like I said, if you had been paying attention, is that most USER LOADED apps do not have a disable feature. Many system apps do, but user installed do not. It would be a good feature for the user to have to be able to disable instead of uninstall those apps.
If it's a factor app you'll get the "uninstall updates" -> "disable".
Which does not contradict in any way what I said about user-installed apps, so keep your insults to yourself.
Of course Android is different with every OEM, but I haven't run into any that totally prevented me from disabling an OEM app.
For just one example, I have a factory test app that becomes active every time I reboot one of my Samsung tablets. I can kill it and it will stay dead -- until the next boot -- but it cannot be disabled. It is not the only OEM app that behaves that way. I just did a quick survey of the tablet here and it's less than 50% of OEM apps that can be disabled, so I'd have to say many can but most cannot. And if you pay attention, that DOES contradict your experience.
Slashdot Mirror
The WSJ link IS just a teaser, though. To read the whole article, you have to subscribe ...
That's what "paywall" means. And it wasn't a complaint, it was a statement of fact.
A majority (76%) of ER doctors admitted that they did not want to need to use the ER, and 63% of morticians said they did not want to have to make use of their own services personally. And only 14% of Slashdot editors admitted that they felt they needed to use an editor before accepting a submission.
High temps hurt performance, but no jet magically loses the ability to fly at one specific temperature.
I predict that many jets lose the ability to fly at the specific temperature of 600C, the point at which aluminum melts.
But the point that the certification extends only up to a certain temperature is the right one. If you can't predict that the runway you are using is long enough for you to successfully take off, your commercial flight isn't supposed to try. This is intended to protect the flying public from commercial flight providers who want to push the envelope a bit too far.
And the "magically" is because the effects are asymptotic. For example, the flight ceiling for an aircraft is the altitude at which the predicted maximum rate of climb is 0. That doesn't mean you can't fly above that altitude, however. It just means that you aren't doing it by an unassisted or unaccellerated climb.
Walmart doesn't have "partners". They have suppliers who have the hobnail boots on their throat to provide what Walmart wants.
And both links are garbage click bait for WSJ (paywalled) and Fortune (nearly blank page.)
I blame the bribed local governments that keep giving those cablecos monopolies
I blame the residents of those local governments who have not reported the monopolies to the federal enforcement agencies. It has been against federal law for anyone to issue a monopoly to a cable company for at least 20 years, and any local government that has done so needs to have a visit from DOJ or FTC.
And, of course, the residents who keep electing the people taking the bribes share in that blame. You do have evidence of bribes before making the claim, right? Proving an illegal monopoly is easy -- it's in the franchise. Proving bribes is a bit harder.
In other words, they fought tooth and nail to stop or rollback net neutrality rules, but now want to cite those very same rules in an effort to force the federal government to take precedent over states.
Of course. If you are going to make them play by your set of rules, then they will play by your set of rules, especially when those rules benefit them in some area. If you've stepped up and said "we are the only entity authorized to make rules for you", wouldn't you expect them to object to new sets of rules being implemented by someone else? It would be silly to expect anything less.
Cable (or Internet service in general) has a natural monopoly in the last mile.
I have two different kinds of "cable" running into my house, and wireless broadband wafting through the ether. All three are capable of streaming video. While traditional "cable TV" may have had a "natural monopoly", internet service does not and never has.
The economic monopoly that exists does so not because of a limited number of "last mile cables", but because of a limited number of last mile customers. Let's say a city has 10,000 possible customers, and 4,000 of them buy cable service. Any competitor who looks at that market first sees that 60% of the market has low interest in the product (or they'd be buying it already.) He might be able to entice some percentage of those to buy from him if his prices are low enough. Maybe. The other 40% are already buying from the incumbent, and maybe he can get 10% of those. The chances are, however, that as soon as he starts to compete, the incumbent will drop prices and he'll not get as many customers as he planned on. His costs will include not only the "last mile", but a physical presence in that city and costs for content and headend. If the city was smart, he's be providing free cable and internet to the schools and city offices, and several PEG (public, education, government) channels on his system at no cost.
In any case, the potential profit is very low, if any, so the incentive to compete is nil. THAT is where the monopoly comes from, and would still be there even if he had free access to any wire he wants. The pot is only so big, and it really is a zero sum game -- everyone splits the existing number of possible customers, and nobody gets to draw in new customers from outside that geographic area.
The first company to run the wires/fiber has an enormous financial advantage over anyone else.
This is like claiming that the local grocery store has a natural monopoly because they've already spent the money installing coolers and checkstands while any new competitors will have to spend that money now to enter the market. That's not "monopoly".
The end result is those de-facto monopolies were converted to legal monopolies,
No. You have it backwards. Cable franchises started out being issued as exclusive, to lure the cable companies into building facilities. What used to be legal monopolies NO LONGER EXIST. It is against federal law for a municipality to issue an exclusive franchise, and it has been that way for 20 years. The law is quite explicit -- if a city issues a franchise to one company they must issue one to another company that is willing to meet the same requirements.
that monopoly agreement with your local government has some requirements for the cable company.
Every franchise agreement has terms. You can have a contract to issue a franchise without it creating a legal monopoly.
your local government does not have much leverage due to the natural monopoly.
No local government can demand that a company provide service to its residents. They can demand that a company provide services in a specific way if they are to provide them at all, but they cannot force Comcast, e.g., to provide service to the residents as a way of creating competition for TWC. They could not demand that Comcast provide service even if the city owned every inch of the last mile and gave let Comcast access it for free.
Is that fair? Of course not. It should have been Lu-Desi, or "ludes" for short. Everyone knows she was a much better actor than he was, and that's even if you remember that she was an actress and not an actor. She was still a better actor.
It has https in the url, so of course it is a safe site. Don't you know nothin bout the interwebs?
The first fire marshal that walks into your store and can't get a cell signal will have his inspectors shut you down. Just to fuck with you.
You must live in a place where the fire marshals are petty, vindictive tyrants. I've been in plenty of stores where there is no cell signal and they're still open. Big cities, small cities, all over the place. I have no cell signal in the buildings where I work, all three of them, and I know that the fire marshals do inspections on a yearly basis. I guess around here they are more interested in doing their job instead of fucking with everyone. YMMV.
Perhaps they just accept the fact that the law does not require anyone to install cell repeaters in their buildings just so the FM can call his wife to tell her he'll be late for dinner. And that's also why the FD command vehicles all have vehicular repeaters around here, specific to the communications channels they need and use.
My point wasn't that I shop at Whole Foods,
If you aren't "tonymus", then I don't care what point you think you were making, I was replying to something he said, not you.
I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made that...
If you are "tonymus" now posting as an AC for some reason, then perhaps you could have been a bit clearer that you were not worried about shopping in a Whole Foods by NOT BEING EXPLICIT in referring to doing price-checks WHILE SHOPPING IN WHOLE FOODS. You know:
I hope they don't block me trying to price check at a Whole Foods Market [msn.com] in the future.
Like I said, whether or not you want to admit you shop there, if you need to DO a price-check while shopping in a Whole Foods then you are very very unclear on the concept of Whole Foods. Every price check you do while in WF, if you are comparing WF to other places, will return the answer "cheaper somewhere else". If you are doing price checks while in a WF that doesn't involve WF, then why the hell are you doing them inside the WF? Wait until you are outside.
I just repaired my daughters, ...
So you fixed them yourself instead of paying a doctor. Good on 'ya.
I'll bet the fire and police departments have something to say. Our coms don't work inside your building.
Fine. We'll install a passive repeater for you. Problem solved. Or you get to do your inspections when the sunshades are rolled up and the place will be flooded with your comms. And it still doesn't involve the FCC.
By the way, if your fire department doesn't have readily available a local repeater to deal with such issues, then your fire department is risking their fire fighter's lives. You're going to run into buildings all over the place that were built long enough ago that they don't pass modern comm channels.
I hope they don't block me trying to price check at a Whole Foods Market in the future.
If you need to do an online pricecheck to know that you can buy stuff a whole lot cheaper someplace else, then I doubt you've figured out how to use this newfangled webby thing in the first place. Or you've never shopped anyplace but Whole Foods.
Screw with cellular signals and you'll be answering to the FCC (at least in the USA).
The FCC has no say over the material used to build a building, much of which will block radio waves quite well. "Those metal screens over the windows are to block sunlight -- thus making the building green by saving on AC costs and part of our commitment to the environment. The copper mesh on the surface of the walls is part of the texturing process -- doesn't it look very nice? What was that, sir? You can't get a cell signal inside? Neither can I. Doesn't that suck?"
Where does the FCC get involved in this?
Because if I saw a $15 upcharge
The last toner cart I ordered was an HP color and it was $240. If you think it is outrageous that a local physical store charges a 6% premium so you can walk in, look and handle the product, and get it right now, versus maybe getting it tomorrow sight-unseen, you're out of touch with the real world. (I'm still waiting for a second-day Amazon Prime delivery that was ordered on Tuesday, so I say "maybe".)
It was proper customer relations to charge the online price, but certainly not out of line for it to be a bit higher to start with in person.
That said, I don't think it's OK for public spaces to block radio signals (and, quite often, the law doesn't as well).
The inside of an Amazon brick and mortar store is not a public space, it is private property, and as an example they can call the police and have you "trespassed" for any number of reasons. I.e., kick you out permanently.
What law do you think covers creating a Faraday cage?
Even if they manage to change the law enough to let them turn the store into a faraday cage,
What law do they need to change?
Best argument this week for traveling carry-on luggage only.
Even those who have only carry-on still need to go through immigration. You don't to skip that step just because you have no checked bags.
Won't this be wonderful that Dubai will have access to everyone's passport and biometric data so they verify who you are in case you come visit?
I don't care what you think you want to do.
Thanks.
Android lets you disable factor apps, except in the rare cases the vendor hacks that feature out.
As I pointed out already, the survey of "factor" apps I made on my Samsung device showed less than 50% of them could be disabled. It isn't rare if more than 50% of the apps cannot be disabled.
Users can either have additional apps installed or if they don't want to use them, not have them installed.
Of course. But that means that any app that a user needs only occasionally must be reinstalled from scratch before it can be used for a short period of time, and then re-uninstalled. That's a lot more work that simply disabling/enabling/disabling an app. This difference seems to be lost on you. For example, the Nook app that wants to have five services running at all times so it can keep in constant contact with home base and monitor all usage has a huge amount of data installed in the form of content (or it can, depending on the user. Mine has.) To reinstall all that content is quite a bit of work and requires the internet. To disable the app means it won't run, but to get access to the content again requires no internet connection to redownload the content after reenabling it. It's just an on/off switch.
but that's how it works today.
Which is why I said it would be nice if we could do it, unlike those who have said that you can disable any app.
The functionality is effectively equivalent,
Except for the differences, yes, totally equivalent. The difference makes the difference.
even if you can't wrap your head around it.
I don't seem to be the one who cannot "wrap my head around" the differences, so why don't you just stop trying to be insulting? You do it so poorly.
Yes, you'd uninstall those, not disable them. Fucking idiots these days.
You clearly do not understand the difference between disabling an app and uninstalling them. As I said a couple of times now, it would be nice if we could disable any app LIKE YOU SAID WE CAN, but which in truth cannot be done. You are not in a good position to be using insult to make your point.
And let's not forget that the first version of the ban wasn't a ban on citizens of those countries travelling to the USA: it was a ban on Muslims from those countries travelling to the USA.
If that's the case.....yeah it's kinda stupid.
But since that wasn't the case, it is irrelevant. The OP lied. The ban was on immigrants and non-immigrants from those countries, period. It's pretty easy to find a copy of the original order. For example, here it is in its entirety. Section 3(c) is the relevant part. If I could copy it out of the EO under evince I would paste it here. It says nothing about Islam, Muslim, or religion in any way. The ban is based on the country of origin.
Taxes on Income (which the Really Rich do not pay) are not.
The statistics for tax payments show that the top one percent pays 24% of the federal, state, and local taxes which averages out to be 34% of their income, while the bottom 20% pays only 2% of the taxes using 19% of their income. In all metrics, "Really Rich" certainly do pay taxes.
The really rich only pay taxes on Realized gains, not on the value of the increase in the assets
They pay capital gains when the gain is realized, not when it appears "on the books" as a paper tiger. The poor also pay capital gains at the same time.
and even then are discounted heavily (as capital gains)
Social engineering, to promote investment. Investment is money that other people get to use while the "Really Rich" don't have access to it. And it's not just "Really Rich" who have stocks, etc. Those are parts of many many working people's retirement accounts. I have a retirement plan that consists mostly of stock and bond funds and I pay nothing at all in taxes on gains until I start accessing the money. Nor do I get to write off any losses. If you want to tax people on the paper profits for stocks and bonds at the time the paper profits are made, you are going to be hurting a very very large number of people who are not even close to the "Really Rich" that you don't like.
Hell, some places even tax the Electricity being produced by your solar panels, that never leaves your property.
Fascinating. What I've found by searching for this tax is that it is a personal property tax on the generation equipment, not a tax on the electricity it produces. This is like the personal property taxes on Rich People stuff that the poor people don't ever pay. The government cannot tax the actual electricity unless it is sold, at which point it has "left the property".
There are also some pretty high exemptions, like a lower cutoff of 1MW systems for solar. It is trivial to avoid those taxes.
And one bit more -- you said you can disable "any app". You cannot disable user-loaded apps. You can only uninstall them. Uninstall is not the same as disable.
Like I said, if you've been paying attention, " Instead of 'uninstall' you'll see a button to uninstall updates".
And like I said, if you had been paying attention, is that most USER LOADED apps do not have a disable feature. Many system apps do, but user installed do not. It would be a good feature for the user to have to be able to disable instead of uninstall those apps.
If it's a factor app you'll get the "uninstall updates" -> "disable".
Which does not contradict in any way what I said about user-installed apps, so keep your insults to yourself.
Of course Android is different with every OEM, but I haven't run into any that totally prevented me from disabling an OEM app.
For just one example, I have a factory test app that becomes active every time I reboot one of my Samsung tablets. I can kill it and it will stay dead -- until the next boot -- but it cannot be disabled. It is not the only OEM app that behaves that way. I just did a quick survey of the tablet here and it's less than 50% of OEM apps that can be disabled, so I'd have to say many can but most cannot. And if you pay attention, that DOES contradict your experience.