If the 'new' owners want to sell their stakes and the old owners still have the capital after their previous investment in TEPCO is wiped out to buy back in so be it. The 'new' owners will have the cash, money has a net present value, and that is what the shares will sell for on the market. On the other hand if the new owners want to keep the company they can.
TEPCO's business effectively destroyed the value of these people's property, in a way the tsunami alone would not have. I think giving these people TEPCO as compensation is the perfect form of justice.
Forcibly dilute the shares of TEPCO until none of the current holders own an appreciable amount of the company, IE ensure the largest share holder owns only a fraction of a percent. Gift the newly created shares to the victims owed compensation. They become the new owners of a profitable power company an continue to earn the associated dividends and appreciation in perpetuity.
Back in engineering classes I took before changing majors to something that did not involving 80 page reports about waste receptacle selection; they used to tell us after you have done all your diligence and calculated what is required, multiply by 1.4.
Funny, I wonder if you know that each state runs its own elections and rules vary widely from state to state. Had you not had ID I bet they would have let you cast a provisional ballot!
No that is NOT that list the local parties use for GOTY efforts. I have volunteered doing IT work for my local party. There is the registered voter list and a separate list of people who they believe are still residents for real, and third list of people they actually expect will vote.
Finally it other than the if you voted part all my points remain! We can't tie your ballot to you, at least not any place where I have been involved. So you could detect if more ballots were cast than people who signed in, but you can't correct the error. You don't which ballots to discard. You can go back and audit the rolls of who signed in but again you can't correct any errors if you find an ineligible voter you don't know which ballot to discard.
Recounts do not for that reason usually result in a voter roll audit, you'd need other legal challenges for that. So again the ONLY thing a recount is going to do for us is identify tabulation errors. Its really a big waste of time.
Its a secret ballot though, because we have no serious authentication around ballot access you can't detect ineligible votes cast with a recount. They only way you could detect is if you had a higher vote total than the number of eligible voters, which we also don't know because no county is ever allowed to clean up its voter rolls. While many of those efforts have been 'problematic' its still a job that needs doing. Next you have the fact that not everyone votes. So if 10K eligible voters in $COUNTY abstain, and 5K ineligible voters cast ballots, you have no visibility, it could certainly effect the election, but you can't show anything wrong happened.
The ONLY thing a recount can tell us about is simple tabulation errors, it can't say jack about the integrity of the election because we don't have enough forensic evidence to paint much of a picture of who voted and for whom. We don't really even have ballpark knowledge of what reasonable values for totals should be.
His team does not include them now! Or if it does you have so watered down the definition that its really insulting to all the legitimate victims of racism through the ages.
Seriously there are as many racially charged skeletons in the closets of Clinton herself and most of her staff as in those of Trump or anyone on his team. A certain segment of the left just screams bigot and racist at anyone whose ideas differ from their own and larger section of the unthinking public just accepts the charge as factual.
Its pathetic, and part of why Trump won is a big group of people myself included are tired of it.
The popular vote totals are crap. Just looking at handful of smaller Virgina counties you can come up with 60K in ineligible voters. https://publicinterestlegal.or...
While I don't think there is any hard data behind Trump's claim he would win the popular vote if not for ineligible voters, its certainly plausible. If 60K can come from a handful of counties. Election integrity and security in this country is a joke. Just imagine how many ineligible votes come for CA!
The Democratic party is only working to make it worse. They have some legitimate concerns about disenfranchising some elderly and poor voters, but rather than come up with intelligent solutions to those problems like, make state IDs available free to retired persons (drawing Social Security) or persons public assistance (SS disability or maybe SNAP) and say making election day a holiday so people can get to the polls while open, they basically stone wall any effort. The reason I can only assume is because they are courting illegal residing aliens, who are by definition not eligible to vote as a constituency.
I do think there have been some state level GOP lead efforts to bias elections in their favor by blocking eligible voters, and that a shame, but its no more or less shameful than the DNC lead attack on election integrity.
I really wonder what some of the top brass are thinking. It seems like everyone has forgotten that its somewhat important that military assets have a degree of disposability. Not that want loose to planes or ships in any conflict but you will, even if you have a high degree of technical superiority over the enemy. If it takes a decade and $5B to replace a single asset you have a problem.
I wonder how far our massive military budget would go in a conflict against a state actor with real military hardware (that they did not just steal for us) rather than mostly insurgents with small arms and pickups.
I never knew about Breitbart news [breitbart.com] until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.
I'll second this. I have had the same experience with it. It is more than a little right-wing slanted, especially their choice of head lines. One thing to always consider with a site like Breitbart is "what stories are they not publishing?" I would not recommend anyone make it their only source for news but it certainly deserves a place in a well informed persons news diet. One thing about Breitbart is their writers do a pretty good job of linking sources and citing facts you can corroborate elsewhere, unless the article is very clearly a pure opinion piece.
Conversely, the traditional media has done nothing but discredit themselves in my eyes since pretty much the middle of the primary season. The totally unbalanced reporting and all the coverage of "OMG Trump said something that might offend somebody" rather than focusing on actual potential crimes and potentially actionable violations of law (on both sides of the political isle). Now the anti Trump coverage is even more Pollyanna insane!
The other day I watched NBC air an interview with Glenn Beck about Steve Brannon, the under laying current clearly being "see we have told you for years Beck is right wing conspiracy nutter (he is) and see if he thinks Bannon is dangerous, us decent, intelligent liberals should really be scared! Boo! They managed not mention Breitbart is a direct competitor to Beck's on media efforts. They did not mention Beck was a #NeverTrump guy, which most NBC audience members probably don't know, in short they failed utterly to contextualize what Beck was saying with the fact he almost certainly has if not an axe to grind at least a dog in the fight. It was really shabby reporting.
Just like when NBC said "putting his children in charge of his companies might not be enough to clear him" when talking about Trump's conflicts of interest. "Clear him" is clearly language designed to make use think either there is some obligation he has to meet or imply some kind of wrong doing. It would appropriate to mention conflict laws don't apply to the president. Precedent and tradition do but not the law. Unlike for example Secretary of State, while they were busy not covering the wikileaks pay to play allegations.
I will close with this. I did not vote for Trump in the primaries. I was really sad to seem him get the GOP nomination when that happened. Possibly as say as lot of Clinton supporters where when she lots the general election. The main stream media made me go out and vote Trump rather than stay home or only vote on local issues and the Congressional election. There were two serpents at the heads of the major parties, and given the media was completely in the tank for HRC and the best they could come up with was minor BS about Trump, it became obvious which of the two serpents was more venomous. All I can say is I think the best candidate won.
Difference, its perfectly legal to have conflicts of interest while being POTUS, the law excludes the POTUS. It was potentially criminal to do so while serving as Secretary of State.
I know nobody on the left gives a damn about the law, but these kinds of things do matter!
That can't be good for energy efficiency though! Unless it allows you to get away with a much much smaller tank or something. In general the greater the temperature delta between the water and the environment surrounding the tank the faster its going too lose energy. So you will have to invest more power in keeping it hot.
I don't know that this will impact tank life much for gas powered systems but its certainly going to chew up heating elements (replaceable usually) faster in electric tanks.
Well India probably isn't the place than. While the availability of justice to the average Indian might still leave a lot to be desired, it is a nation with a strong legal frame work (when used) and international pull to go after a company like facebook.
Where FB is concerned deep pockets will get attention anytime there is blood on the water. They would be much better off conducting dangerous experiments in one of the many failed states, where they could pretty much count on being able to fire up the corporate jet and leave if things got dicey.
I doubt it. Dementia is a disease of the elderly. Even my parents in their mid 60s spend half their lives around leaded gas. I am not sure how old you have to be before they stop calling it early onset but the folks with sever issues that I have mostly encountered tend to be in their late 70s and 80s. So they will have spend the majority of their lives around leaded gas.
So I would expect its to early to make attribution. That does not rule out all kinds of other environmental factors though.
The Constitution very explicitly grants the president the power to grant pardons at least for federal crimes there isn't really any legal question about that. There is lots president for presidents granting pardons for alleged crimes. So Obama certainly can legally pardon Snowden, he has the power as the executive to do that and he would be on much much firmer legal ground doing so that he is with many of his other executive actions!
He is just to much the sad sack to take responsibility, and say "I won't" while he thinks he can get away with "I can't".
Right because Obama is lying and deflecting the way he does about everything. I inherited this economy. I inherited these ways, Iraq isn't a mess and ISIS does not exist because I for political reasons decided the ignore a still co-dependent IRAQI government, nope its still entirely Bush's fault. Independent of if we ever should have gone back into Iraq or not (its important not to over look the fact they basically had not cooperated with the inspection regime; and if they had the bad WMD intel would have been easily dis-proven!) the presidents actions still deserve scrutiny and he is responsible for the outcome of the clean up effort on his watch.
What Obama really means here is "I won't pardon Snowden" That's a perfectly justifiable position! I don't necessarily agree with it, but a reasonably intelligent person can concluded that Snowden's alleged crimes, the harm to intelligence efforts he cause and subsequent actions cannot be excused even in light of very useful national conversation he facilitated. If that is what Obama thinks he should spine up and say so.
It depends. There is still the element of creativity. Until the AI is so advanced that it can say "You know now that I have T if just did U and filled in V blank I could do Z!" That does not have to be some grand thing either it can be the small stuff and still be valuable.
I think that depends a lot on the someone. Is it some poor slob plucked off the rail road tracks in the western US, or is it some highly educated(for the day) wealthy urbanite? Suppose we snapped Andrew Carnegie off the street in 1860, and dropped him off here in 2016. I think he would be surprised and upset by a number of things but would mostly be able to navigate.
I think for a lot people what you are saying is very true. She is however a teenager. At 14 years old she would probably be much more able to adapt to those realities than most of us adults would. She is still young enough to learn skills, etc. Is still at an age where she can readily make friends and from relationships.
The real question is can they freeze here before she is technically deceased? I think this matters becuase its terms of being able to support herself in the future that could be critical. If she is alive and can put decent amount of money away in some institutions focused on capital preservation even what little return that generates might leave her with a nice nest egg five generations from now!
Except we did not get just half the story. We had press that was absolutely in the tank for one side. Hell Breitbart and Stream.org were about the only places you could read anything positive (and at least mostly factual) about Trump and there were plenty of articles critical of him at both outlets as well.
Meanwhile NBC was playing 10 year old tables of him making comments on an entertainment program! They panned the story as these comments were supposed to bury Trump, could be the end of his presidential hopes they claimed. I was wondering why nobody decided to play H's comments in serious press interviews on marriage equity for only 8 years ago or maybe some of those old clips about "super predictors" or maybe show some of those old Clinton / Gore campaign buttons with the Confederate Battle flag in the background. We got lot a fair amount of coverage of Trump being endorsed by David Duke and had all the Sunday shows giving most of their coverage one week to insisting he distance himself from the guy even though he had already done so. So Trump could not be endorsed by racists but Hillary was allowed to be married to one?
Hillary got call plenty of her own witnesses, she had considerably more money to invest in ad time and she used it. She had the assistance of all the major media outlets.
Why bother, until Apple allows someone to build a browser that isn't just a thin wrapper around their one webkit library who cares?
I mean what is the point, its as if you can offer much in terms of experience on a phone. Its probably the one place where a web browser really should be stripped of just about any UI other than a combine address/search bar, which is the trend everywhere anyway. As far as 'privacy' you are one IOS update away from Apple deciding to break it utterly by having webviews cache update typed word suggestions, or otherwise spew data all over the place.
Yes and small groups of people can certainly survive utilizing cisterns etc. Keeping a large municipal area in water on the other hand usually means a big open air reservoir, and lots of large population centers are long the coasts, vulnerable to sea incursions.
If there was a sudden sea level rise, it would be very difficult to keep those populations adequately supplied with water.
It will only get worse unfortunately, there is one side pushing this vote by mail nonsense and the reason of course is that in person voter fraud on an impactful scale is somewhat difficult even with our laughable security. Once half the public is voting by mail we will never know who filled out those ballots, what sort of vote swapping and ballot sales might be happening etc.
As it is now, anytime a county tries to clean up its voter rolls, the Department of (In)Justice swoops in and prevents them. So the number of people on the roles who are in theory eligible to vote is over stated. So we can't tell if someone votes twice say in their current county and their prior county of residence. Because we don't tie identity to the actual ballots we can't discover an over vote condition in general unless it is disgustingly blatant. Where i voted the poll workers signed us in and than we stood in a long line wrapping around a school gym before you got to the voting booths, because it was there were doors open wide to the outside on three of four walls. Most folks were not paying much attentions, eyes on smart phones, in books, etc, the four poll works were either busy doing signs or helping people with the booths. Anyone could have slipped in easily.
The will tell you though that voter fraud is rare. I wonder how anyone knows that given that any all potentially detective controls have been prevented.
As far as I am concerned the only thing that is important was were the e-mails faked. If the were not than all said nation state really did was give us a better informed public.
Did they maybe not do the same to the other side? Who cares so what? Its not like all sorts of world leaders, and international organizations, didn't make their opinions known about who they wanted to be the next president. Should we image those acts and the resulting media coverage don't impact US elections?
Population collapse will occur due to disease, lack of food, or lack of fresh water (possibly due to sea incursions). In any case the survivors will be able to extract a lot of useful materials and tools scavenging the ruins of society. So I think a small group of humans probably can survive most predicted and predictable calamities.
Slashdot Mirror
If the 'new' owners want to sell their stakes and the old owners still have the capital after their previous investment in TEPCO is wiped out to buy back in so be it. The 'new' owners will have the cash, money has a net present value, and that is what the shares will sell for on the market. On the other hand if the new owners want to keep the company they can.
TEPCO's business effectively destroyed the value of these people's property, in a way the tsunami alone would not have. I think giving these people TEPCO as compensation is the perfect form of justice.
Forcibly dilute the shares of TEPCO until none of the current holders own an appreciable amount of the company, IE ensure the largest share holder owns only a fraction of a percent. Gift the newly created shares to the victims owed compensation. They become the new owners of a profitable power company an continue to earn the associated dividends and appreciation in perpetuity.
Back in engineering classes I took before changing majors to something that did not involving 80 page reports about waste receptacle selection; they used to tell us after you have done all your diligence and calculated what is required, multiply by 1.4.
Funny, I wonder if you know that each state runs its own elections and rules vary widely from state to state. Had you not had ID I bet they would have let you cast a provisional ballot!
No that is NOT that list the local parties use for GOTY efforts. I have volunteered doing IT work for my local party. There is the registered voter list and a separate list of people who they believe are still residents for real, and third list of people they actually expect will vote.
Finally it other than the if you voted part all my points remain! We can't tie your ballot to you, at least not any place where I have been involved. So you could detect if more ballots were cast than people who signed in, but you can't correct the error. You don't which ballots to discard. You can go back and audit the rolls of who signed in but again you can't correct any errors if you find an ineligible voter you don't know which ballot to discard.
Recounts do not for that reason usually result in a voter roll audit, you'd need other legal challenges for that. So again the ONLY thing a recount is going to do for us is identify tabulation errors. Its really a big waste of time.
Its a secret ballot though, because we have no serious authentication around ballot access you can't detect ineligible votes cast with a recount. They only way you could detect is if you had a higher vote total than the number of eligible voters, which we also don't know because no county is ever allowed to clean up its voter rolls. While many of those efforts have been 'problematic' its still a job that needs doing. Next you have the fact that not everyone votes. So if 10K eligible voters in $COUNTY abstain, and 5K ineligible voters cast ballots, you have no visibility, it could certainly effect the election, but you can't show anything wrong happened.
The ONLY thing a recount can tell us about is simple tabulation errors, it can't say jack about the integrity of the election because we don't have enough forensic evidence to paint much of a picture of who voted and for whom. We don't really even have ballpark knowledge of what reasonable values for totals should be.
His team does not include them now! Or if it does you have so watered down the definition that its really insulting to all the legitimate victims of racism through the ages.
Seriously there are as many racially charged skeletons in the closets of Clinton herself and most of her staff as in those of Trump or anyone on his team. A certain segment of the left just screams bigot and racist at anyone whose ideas differ from their own and larger section of the unthinking public just accepts the charge as factual.
Its pathetic, and part of why Trump won is a big group of people myself included are tired of it.
The popular vote totals are crap. Just looking at handful of smaller Virgina counties you can come up with 60K in ineligible voters. https://publicinterestlegal.or...
While I don't think there is any hard data behind Trump's claim he would win the popular vote if not for ineligible voters, its certainly plausible. If 60K can come from a handful of counties. Election integrity and security in this country is a joke. Just imagine how many ineligible votes come for CA!
The Democratic party is only working to make it worse. They have some legitimate concerns about disenfranchising some elderly and poor voters, but rather than come up with intelligent solutions to those problems like, make state IDs available free to retired persons (drawing Social Security) or persons public assistance (SS disability or maybe SNAP) and say making election day a holiday so people can get to the polls while open, they basically stone wall any effort. The reason I can only assume is because they are courting illegal residing aliens, who are by definition not eligible to vote as a constituency.
I do think there have been some state level GOP lead efforts to bias elections in their favor by blocking eligible voters, and that a shame, but its no more or less shameful than the DNC lead attack on election integrity.
I really wonder what some of the top brass are thinking. It seems like everyone has forgotten that its somewhat important that military assets have a degree of disposability. Not that want loose to planes or ships in any conflict but you will, even if you have a high degree of technical superiority over the enemy. If it takes a decade and $5B to replace a single asset you have a problem.
I wonder how far our massive military budget would go in a conflict against a state actor with real military hardware (that they did not just steal for us) rather than mostly insurgents with small arms and pickups.
I have to call BS on your BS
http://www.politico.com/blogs/...
It really was there for a long time, but they took it down after the election.
I never knew about Breitbart news [breitbart.com] until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.
I'll second this. I have had the same experience with it. It is more than a little right-wing slanted, especially their choice of head lines. One thing to always consider with a site like Breitbart is "what stories are they not publishing?" I would not recommend anyone make it their only source for news but it certainly deserves a place in a well informed persons news diet. One thing about Breitbart is their writers do a pretty good job of linking sources and citing facts you can corroborate elsewhere, unless the article is very clearly a pure opinion piece.
Conversely, the traditional media has done nothing but discredit themselves in my eyes since pretty much the middle of the primary season. The totally unbalanced reporting and all the coverage of "OMG Trump said something that might offend somebody" rather than focusing on actual potential crimes and potentially actionable violations of law (on both sides of the political isle). Now the anti Trump coverage is even more Pollyanna insane!
The other day I watched NBC air an interview with Glenn Beck about Steve Brannon, the under laying current clearly being "see we have told you for years Beck is right wing conspiracy nutter (he is) and see if he thinks Bannon is dangerous, us decent, intelligent liberals should really be scared! Boo! They managed not mention Breitbart is a direct competitor to Beck's on media efforts. They did not mention Beck was a #NeverTrump guy, which most NBC audience members probably don't know, in short they failed utterly to contextualize what Beck was saying with the fact he almost certainly has if not an axe to grind at least a dog in the fight. It was really shabby reporting.
Just like when NBC said "putting his children in charge of his companies might not be enough to clear him" when talking about Trump's conflicts of interest. "Clear him" is clearly language designed to make use think either there is some obligation he has to meet or imply some kind of wrong doing. It would appropriate to mention conflict laws don't apply to the president. Precedent and tradition do but not the law. Unlike for example Secretary of State, while they were busy not covering the wikileaks pay to play allegations.
I will close with this. I did not vote for Trump in the primaries. I was really sad to seem him get the GOP nomination when that happened. Possibly as say as lot of Clinton supporters where when she lots the general election. The main stream media made me go out and vote Trump rather than stay home or only vote on local issues and the Congressional election. There were two serpents at the heads of the major parties, and given the media was completely in the tank for HRC and the best they could come up with was minor BS about Trump, it became obvious which of the two serpents was more venomous. All I can say is I think the best candidate won.
Difference, its perfectly legal to have conflicts of interest while being POTUS, the law excludes the POTUS. It was potentially criminal to do so while serving as Secretary of State.
I know nobody on the left gives a damn about the law, but these kinds of things do matter!
That can't be good for energy efficiency though! Unless it allows you to get away with a much much smaller tank or something. In general the greater the temperature delta between the water and the environment surrounding the tank the faster its going too lose energy. So you will have to invest more power in keeping it hot.
I don't know that this will impact tank life much for gas powered systems but its certainly going to chew up heating elements (replaceable usually) faster in electric tanks.
Well India probably isn't the place than. While the availability of justice to the average Indian might still leave a lot to be desired, it is a nation with a strong legal frame work (when used) and international pull to go after a company like facebook.
Where FB is concerned deep pockets will get attention anytime there is blood on the water. They would be much better off conducting dangerous experiments in one of the many failed states, where they could pretty much count on being able to fire up the corporate jet and leave if things got dicey.
I doubt it. Dementia is a disease of the elderly. Even my parents in their mid 60s spend half their lives around leaded gas. I am not sure how old you have to be before they stop calling it early onset but the folks with sever issues that I have mostly encountered tend to be in their late 70s and 80s. So they will have spend the majority of their lives around leaded gas.
So I would expect its to early to make attribution. That does not rule out all kinds of other environmental factors though.
The Constitution very explicitly grants the president the power to grant pardons at least for federal crimes there isn't really any legal question about that. There is lots president for presidents granting pardons for alleged crimes. So Obama certainly can legally pardon Snowden, he has the power as the executive to do that and he would be on much much firmer legal ground doing so that he is with many of his other executive actions!
He is just to much the sad sack to take responsibility, and say "I won't" while he thinks he can get away with "I can't".
Right because Obama is lying and deflecting the way he does about everything. I inherited this economy. I inherited these ways, Iraq isn't a mess and ISIS does not exist because I for political reasons decided the ignore a still co-dependent IRAQI government, nope its still entirely Bush's fault. Independent of if we ever should have gone back into Iraq or not (its important not to over look the fact they basically had not cooperated with the inspection regime; and if they had the bad WMD intel would have been easily dis-proven!) the presidents actions still deserve scrutiny and he is responsible for the outcome of the clean up effort on his watch.
What Obama really means here is "I won't pardon Snowden" That's a perfectly justifiable position! I don't necessarily agree with it, but a reasonably intelligent person can concluded that Snowden's alleged crimes, the harm to intelligence efforts he cause and subsequent actions cannot be excused even in light of very useful national conversation he facilitated. If that is what Obama thinks he should spine up and say so.
It depends. There is still the element of creativity. Until the AI is so advanced that it can say "You know now that I have T if just did U and filled in V blank I could do Z!" That does not have to be some grand thing either it can be the small stuff and still be valuable.
Someone from 1860 would have a lot of trouble.
I think that depends a lot on the someone. Is it some poor slob plucked off the rail road tracks in the western US, or is it some highly educated(for the day) wealthy urbanite? Suppose we snapped Andrew Carnegie off the street in 1860, and dropped him off here in 2016. I think he would be surprised and upset by a number of things but would mostly be able to navigate.
I think for a lot people what you are saying is very true. She is however a teenager. At 14 years old she would probably be much more able to adapt to those realities than most of us adults would. She is still young enough to learn skills, etc. Is still at an age where she can readily make friends and from relationships.
The real question is can they freeze here before she is technically deceased? I think this matters becuase its terms of being able to support herself in the future that could be critical. If she is alive and can put decent amount of money away in some institutions focused on capital preservation even what little return that generates might leave her with a nice nest egg five generations from now!
Except we did not get just half the story. We had press that was absolutely in the tank for one side. Hell Breitbart and Stream.org were about the only places you could read anything positive (and at least mostly factual) about Trump and there were plenty of articles critical of him at both outlets as well.
Meanwhile NBC was playing 10 year old tables of him making comments on an entertainment program! They panned the story as these comments were supposed to bury Trump, could be the end of his presidential hopes they claimed. I was wondering why nobody decided to play H's comments in serious press interviews on marriage equity for only 8 years ago or maybe some of those old clips about "super predictors" or maybe show some of those old Clinton / Gore campaign buttons with the Confederate Battle flag in the background. We got lot a fair amount of coverage of Trump being endorsed by David Duke and had all the Sunday shows giving most of their coverage one week to insisting he distance himself from the guy even though he had already done so. So Trump could not be endorsed by racists but Hillary was allowed to be married to one?
Hillary got call plenty of her own witnesses, she had considerably more money to invest in ad time and she used it. She had the assistance of all the major media outlets.
Why bother, until Apple allows someone to build a browser that isn't just a thin wrapper around their one webkit library who cares?
I mean what is the point, its as if you can offer much in terms of experience on a phone. Its probably the one place where a web browser really should be stripped of just about any UI other than a combine address/search bar, which is the trend everywhere anyway. As far as 'privacy' you are one IOS update away from Apple deciding to break it utterly by having webviews cache update typed word suggestions, or otherwise spew data all over the place.
Its all a big waste of time really.
Yes and small groups of people can certainly survive utilizing cisterns etc. Keeping a large municipal area in water on the other hand usually means a big open air reservoir, and lots of large population centers are long the coasts, vulnerable to sea incursions.
If there was a sudden sea level rise, it would be very difficult to keep those populations adequately supplied with water.
It will only get worse unfortunately, there is one side pushing this vote by mail nonsense and the reason of course is that in person voter fraud on an impactful scale is somewhat difficult even with our laughable security. Once half the public is voting by mail we will never know who filled out those ballots, what sort of vote swapping and ballot sales might be happening etc.
As it is now, anytime a county tries to clean up its voter rolls, the Department of (In)Justice swoops in and prevents them. So the number of people on the roles who are in theory eligible to vote is over stated. So we can't tell if someone votes twice say in their current county and their prior county of residence. Because we don't tie identity to the actual ballots we can't discover an over vote condition in general unless it is disgustingly blatant. Where i voted the poll workers signed us in and than we stood in a long line wrapping around a school gym before you got to the voting booths, because it was there were doors open wide to the outside on three of four walls. Most folks were not paying much attentions, eyes on smart phones, in books, etc, the four poll works were either busy doing signs or helping people with the booths. Anyone could have slipped in easily.
The will tell you though that voter fraud is rare. I wonder how anyone knows that given that any all potentially detective controls have been prevented.
As far as I am concerned the only thing that is important was were the e-mails faked. If the were not than all said nation state really did was give us a better informed public.
Did they maybe not do the same to the other side? Who cares so what? Its not like all sorts of world leaders, and international organizations, didn't make their opinions known about who they wanted to be the next president. Should we image those acts and the resulting media coverage don't impact US elections?
Population collapse will occur due to disease, lack of food, or lack of fresh water (possibly due to sea incursions). In any case the survivors will be able to extract a lot of useful materials and tools scavenging the ruins of society. So I think a small group of humans probably can survive most predicted and predictable calamities.