You could write this on a postcard and read it as if it's the card itself saying it and it would more or less work the same way. People are desperate make subjective experience the bright line for humans but you can't actually prove it for other people or disprove it for rocks so it's kind of a moot point.

I think the issue is if you are dynamically updating the rules then you might have an intermediate state where some packages are processed according to some set of rules which is neither the set of rules at the start nor at the end. Wheras with anchors you can flip between different sets of rules atomically. (though I suspect you can do the same with iptables but it'll called something different)

I tend to mark them as spam (and hope that it causes them problems send email) if I didn't explicitly sign up for them. I'm not going to be polite about it if they aren't.

It's pretty much impossible to do this in a useful way, _and_ it would also cement even more control over the media landscape to those companies.

Because you're paying for that inefficiency, generally.

This is part of the logic behind strategic bombing, and there's a lot of writing on how it doesn't win wars and can sometimes be counterproductive: firstly it's harder to hit and damage infrastructure than you might think (especially once your target stars fortifying at all), secondly it can be easier and faster to repair critical infrastructure than you might think, thirdly it can easily get way more expensive than you might think, and lastly it doesn't demotivate people like you might think, in fact it tends to will people to fight harder, just because spite is such a motivating force.

It is a bit of a continuation of the somewhat annoying trend of integrating features into apps that should be part of the window manager (tabs, in the first place, for example). This one is extra awkward because even windows (which has spent a lot of time behind on window management) can do two things side by side as the same unit now.

It's guaranteed to have more paperwork. Actually secure, maybe.

It's easier because you don't need a precise cycle count, just a worst-case threshold.

This is one of those 'you can just look at it' sorts of datasets, it's really not plausible that the uncertainty in the measurement is affecting anything.