There, I fixed it for you Bambu. You may use it under Creative Commons.

Cars were made for 100 years without an internet connection. Even for an EV there is no need for network connectivity or constant software updates. The first time a prominent figure is assasinated with a remote take-over of their vehicle people may start to see this issue a bit differently.

What's worse is that it's not even a principled view. If you really don't trust Google, then you shouldn't rely on Google's software no matter what policies they change or promises they make. The problem is actually far more profound, that citizens are now expected to have a closed smartphone from one of the duopolies which government and corporate entities need to trust, which means they cannot allow it to be entirely your device. This is a tacit policy that must be defeated as a policy matter.

I recently purchased the Firefly Blu-ray and it was an interesting case because it's image quality isn't that much better than the DVD (but definitely better) however it's sound quality was astonishingly better than the DVD. I imagine this has a lot to do with the source material, how it was mastered, etc. I still stream, but I like that I have a core collection that will never disappear without warning, or be edited behind my back (which happens all the time, without notice, especially on YouTube and on Amazon Prime).

Broadcast radio and TV is (and newspaper, and telephone lines) are, ironically, a more resilient and distributed form of information distribution than the internet in many ways. The internet itself becomes the bottleneck; the power-law distributed control becomes the bottleneck; the devices (and all their security and psychological downsides) become terrible yet indispensable.

For every middle manager gung ho to replace paper with an iPad and an app, I say: find something else to do with your time. You're making the world actively worse.

For others, those who've read something, or know more, or think they know more, that symbol, that myth, has been ruined. The illusion pierced, the ugly reality revealed. They then look with pity, disdain and contempt at those who still admire the person. Or worse, they make the bad faith argument that to admire him is in fact to embrace those ruinous facts of which most are still ignorant.

Frankly, I think what you're doing is a farce. You're showing the world how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is. Ultimately you're trying to prove how dumb it is to believe in anyone or anything. If you look closely enough you'll find dirt on anyone. There is a contradiction: you claim a moral stance, but your "moral" position degrades the very idea of role models, heroism, and admiration itself. With enough scrutiny, admiration tends to zero.

The reality of the person is irrelevant. What matters is what they mean, what they symbolize, and the kind of archetype they represent. This is of course not true universally; some mythological people are alive, powerful, and dangerous and we cannot afford such kayfabe. But some are harmless and imply no endorsement of their misdeeds. Especially for actors, storytellers, artists, scientists and perhaps a few others we not only CAN afford it, we SHOULD do it, because these role models (or symbols of role models) are what make up the beating heart of a coherent culture.

I choose to admire Chuck Norris, Michael Jackson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Gahndi, Isaac Asimov, even if some deeds of theirs were wicked. I prefer to go through life admiring symbols of people even knowing that these are constructs. To do otherwise is to recognize the futility of admiration, and I choose not to live that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqRIw5FICAs

A Kent State professor calls 911 because she can't get into her building to pee; she is clearly drunk; they give her every opportunity to get a ride home; she refuses and is eventually detained. Later she goes to the police department to get an apology from the officers involved. It was, to me, a shocking example of the narcissistic delusion, with stakes low-enough that one could focus on that and not the side-effects.

BTW I don't know anything about the subject, so I mainly look for internal consistency and specific, accurate factual claims as evidence for credibility.