I do this as well and it doesn't always work like you described. Unexpected breaks are the worst. I also feel less sick if I am sitting/standing sideways to the direction of motion. Somehow I don't feel motion-sickness at all on water, air or trains, but just on road.
What about no default ? Just Prompt user after installation which search engine they want to set as default.
HN users will switch to something they prefer, normal users wouldn't know there exists anything other than google. By making what you think majority wants as default, you are forcing something on people who doesn't know any better.
Google pays Mozilla a bunch of money to be the default search engine, and Mozilla needs the money as they are a non-profit.
If somebody cares about their online privacy, they can change the default search engine very easily - I think what we should be doing is teaching the average web browser what kind of tracking goes on so that more people are willing to switch to things like Firefox/DDG.
No need to lie just to make a point. Firefox does not "compromise the privacy of their users" by using google.com as default search engine. You're going to have write quite the detailed explanation if you want to make that case and make a credible claim at the same time.
See also about:telemetry to see if anything enabled. If enabled, they are sending a bunch of information with unique id. Even if disabled, the telemetry is still always being gathered, just not sent.
I suspect this might be using a coin-toss to print whether the prediction was correct. Some of the test, it had to be near impossible for robot to respond as it did.
It looks good with editing, graphics stock footage and such but not really for HN demographic. Some of the AI commentaries are also very exaggerated in places.
National/international news from AP and Reuters is about as politically neutral as you can get. Major news networks, even overtly partisan ones like FOX News, rarely outright lie - their bias is in sins of omission. You can watch ABC, CNN, FOX, or read the NY Times or Washington Post, and take it with a grain of salt if it starts feeling one-sided.
The internet is a wonderful thing.
But the heart of the bias problem isn't that the sources are biased, at least if you stay away from outright nonsense like InfoWars. Rather, the problem is that people are biased, and then start looking for news that reinforces our biases. We can even read the same story and get entirely different interpretations of it (see all the arguing downthread about DACA negotiations).
Facts are (mostly) objective; interpretation is always subjective.
It's less about finding different sources and more about learning how to critically evaluate what you hear (i.e., not blindly letting your own biases accept the narrative as it's delivered).
It also depends on what the story involves. The example I gave above—a plane crash—is very objective. Something bad happened, people were likely hurt, authorities are investigating, etc. Where it starts to get murky is when a story taps into an ongoing narrative like gun control.
Notice how the major news networks were (and still are) each pushing their own narrative around the Parkland shooting. The left-leaning media were pushing the need for more gun control and anchoring that to the victims, the right was babbling on about how the left was just trying to steal everyone's guns and why gun ownership is positive. It's where you're being told that one side is "evil" that your antennae should go up.
In situations like these, it's worth considering what is factually true, what is opinion/emotionally-driven bias, and working hard to form your own opinions.
One must try to find points of view from all "sides", and then apply critical thinking to everything that one reads/hears. Every source is very biased and full of a lot of (mostly, really) shit, but the facts can be discerned if personal biases give way to objective analysis.
In practice, that might get you more in trouble. I like to think LEO as well connected gang members. One should generally do what they tell you to not make them angry in any way. And after the interaction is over, one can think about taking legal action if necessary. Some sort of on person hidden video recorder would be better, as LEO can make up charges or plant things, but that's too much annoyance for normal people, so complying to whatever the ask is the best option. If you want to assert your right that might upset police, camera whose memory can't be destroyed easily is a must if you don't want to end up in prison.
