They found something which waits for five seconds and then does something. At least part of the thing in question was removing some stuff from the DOM - I couldn't understand anything else from the minified JS. That is not a smoking gun.
Linux supports s2idle/s0ix just fine, though I guess it will depend on hardware like suspend always has done. I have a laptop which only supports s2idle and it almost always works fine. (There are issues in Windows too though).
However, it is still very crappy, because there was never anything wrong with S3. It comes up in a second, and the battery discharge rate is low enough to leave it suspended for days without worrying. The latter feature is actually important - coming in 0.1 seconds as opposed to 1 is not important.
That's different: probably due to Windows Update, but there are other things that can set wake timers to do various things at night. For some genius reason they never go back to sleep.
It's not about being informed; it's about general knowledge.
If it were about being informed, the plaintiff could attest "I was not informed" which would be reasonable in a court as they're talking about what they have direct experience of. But they defence is saying "you may not have been specifically informed, but you should have known anyway because it was in the news."
The plaintiffs did not say "there was no general awareness of these problems" - had they done so, maybe that would have been sufficient, or more likely they would have needed to enter evidence like statements from a sufficiently broad body of customers. But they didn't do that, so they didn't contest the argument which the judge decided was at least enough if was true.
The real question here is whether "general awareness of issues" is enough to defend cases like these.
Tetanus is a bacteria that lives in soil. It's only associated with rust because rust gives more surface area to allow dirt to accumulate on which bacteria can survive, and because iron objects are often sharp enough to pierce the skin. If you were cut with a gleaming razer that had just had soil smeared on it you'd have a good chance of contracting tetanus!
I live in a relatively cool climate but it gets to a high relatively humidity. I don't think it has anything to do with my sweat glands - if it were then I would overheat easily because I wouldn't be sweating enough, right?
It's bizarre to me that you think most people in most climates can't walk indefinitely without sweating - walking shouldn't be an exertion unless you're climbing a steep hill or are seriously unfit. Sure, in a hot climate in summer, but there's a lot of the world which is not that.
I do cycle pretty slowly (about 10mph) so if your journey is onerous at that speed but doable at the speed limit of an e-bike than that would make a difference of course. Still, I think people get too fixated on cycling fast in some countries where cycling isn't the norm because cycling is seen more as a sport than as transport.
I brought up walking only because I don't get sweaty walking - it doesn't have to be practical to commute that way. If you can go for a 6 hour hike without getting sweaty, you can bike to work for substantially less than 6 hours without getting sweaty, right?
When I biked to work I never arrived sweaty. Cycling allows you to travel faster than walking for the same effort, so you have better evaporative cooling (i.e. your sweat works better, before it soaks into your clothes) so this line always seemed weird to me - how far can you walk without breaking a sweat? Indefinitely, most of the year.
Because in my country they are limited to 15mph by law. In the USA they are limited to 20mph, which would be 20 minutes faster, and still much longer than the average American's commute, which is 27 minutes. In the context of the original post, there will still be many people whose commutes have stretches with much higher speeds possible, for whom the difference would be even greater, so even there "almost never" is clearly wrong.
Maybe there are people advocating for electric motorbikes, rather than electrically supported push bikes, though I don't see them. But of course the faster you go on any kind of bike the more dangerous it is - riding an ordinary bike is pretty safe, and the exercise benefits mean it's overall good for public health. But encouraging more people onto motorbikes, even zero-emission ones, could easily be a public health disaster due to the inevitable increase in fatal accidents. Cars are much safer per mile travelled, which again goes to the above context.
Really? Average commute distance in the USA and in the UK is 20 miles each way, which is going to be about 1h20 on an e-bike going 15mph. I would imagine that millions of people buy groceries regularly that is too bulky to transport by bike without a trailer, and I think that if you do allow a trailer, millions of people are still transporting bulky items like flat pack furniture, appliances, waste etc several times a year.
All of that amounts to more frequently than "almost never".
Their employees have failed Unicode college >:(