"This should cost nearly nothing to implement."

But shitty radios cost money to support. Customers will complain and there won't be solutions. It's not about the cost of the radio, it's about the cost of the feature.

"...whatever terribly short range staticky mess you capture can be presented to the consumer for compliance purposes."

It can be, but there are consequences. And that assumes compliance requirements don't get worse.

AM radio has theoretical value because it has historical value and partisans have destroyed FM radio. AM radio has NEVER been required, and for good reason. Cars didn't have radios at all at one time, yet the world survived. Worse yet, when cars didn't have radios, drivers didn't have cell phones either. We were just fine.

You can get your instructions from Putin over the internet now, just like your rubles.

'While public discussion around the legislation has largely focused on emergency alerts and news access, some scholars say preserving AM radio also has implications for media diversity... "I think the media landscape is really overwhelmingly homogenized right now, and AM radio is important in many markets," [said Zachary McDowell, associate professor of communications at the University of Illinois Chicago]. "It's a space that still allows for all sorts of different voices that is still open and accessible."'

This is bullshit. The reason for the homogeneity in "media" is because that was a Republican strategy to create partisan media. Reagan began deregulating media so that essential checks ensuring independent media would be destroyed. That's where we are today and the solution is not to force shitty receivers into cars where no one wants them, the solution is to undue the damage done to media since the 80s. Cars are utterly irrelevant to the state of media today, and back when Reagan was ruining media cars were NOT required to have radios AT ALL.

"It needs to be forced as standard equipment."

Needs to be for your partisan interests, not for anything else. Gen Z doesn't see utility for good reason.

I don't think people looking for entertainment are going to pay to watch a propaganda hit piece.

"... ALPRs ... can be a good tool to solve crimes ..."

A gas chamber can be a good tool to prevent crimes.

"The bookkeeping is not there to ensure this technology is used responsibly ..."

No such thing as responsible violation of constitutional rights.

Gas chambers would also lower car crime, doesn't mean it's ethical. A surveillance state certainly has *some* benefits, Hitler did some good things for the German people.

Actually you need a large part of the "full range of modern hardware", you just don't need a lot of I/O. Unless you want to network boot, of course.

All of the processor, all of the memory, all of anything to do with memory, PCI, possibly USB. It would be easier to enumerate what wouldn't be needed. And most is this is supported in "BIOS" while not documented publicly.

Yes, OSes generally "resupport" this hardware, but the OS needs to be loaded, "standardized interfaces for storage" are only the last step.

If using hardware is ethical, then using the BIOS that is included with and is part of the hardware is also ethical. Cannot be otherwise.

You would think people would tire of RMS's silly lies. There is no end to RMS's desire to take your work for free.

That doesn't consider how many times he's changed his ID due to personal humiliations.

Or having a multi-core system and running the world's most tightly coded single-threaded application on it. Performance is more than good wishes.

"As hardware evolved we became less and less concerned with that."
That's not true, your problem is who you think "we" is. For application programmers, arguably there hasn't been concern since the early 90s. But the majority of programming is embedded where constrained systems make you care about resource usage.

"Do we get lightning speed performance?"
No, lightning performance results from care and good work, not hypotheticals.

"There's no point in doing that without a minimalist browser that can still surf the modern day internet."
And no point with it either. Ignorance of literally everything doesn't make you an architect, it makes you a fool to think you are.

"...and is secure because it doesn't rely on a JIT compiler."

LOL SuperKendall is that you?

So what? Your impression doesn't get any work done for me.

This plan is predicated on people as stupid as you, but with lots of money. That exists, so this con exists. We're all impressed, though, with your willingness to tell us how stupid you are.