All the best for your furry friend.

One batch of the 4A's batteries have become a fire hazard. That's why Google (near)bricked the phones to prevent that.

These delayed notifications sound like some background processes get killed. I hazard to guess that's why you get all at once once you wake up the phone. So look for items like background and battery optimization in the settings and see if you can re-enable some of these.

It's been a minute with the 4A. I think it's great that you keep extending the life of the phone and thus reduce e-waste. But I think it might be time to look for another phone.

You're right, you used to be able to do that but it's been a while since it stopped.

https://www.lifewire.com/view-instagram-without-account-5271416

Just as an aside and in addition to the other comments here:

There is a phenomenon called regulatory capture. It can take many different forms but the short version is that agencies and policies get perverted to only benefit one group. When the intention should be society at large.

There is a process where the big players, say OpenAI, call for regulation of their industry, not because they feel it needs regulating but because the regulatory hurdles will keep competitors at bay. Meta pulled a stunt like that as well with social networks. So big hype company calling for regulation in their field is a red flag, accompanied by a loud alarm bell.

A good faith argument kind of presupposes that all people constantly objectively question their convictions. And I don't think we humans do that. We're very happy with the way we think. And very capable of holding opposing viewpoints at the same time.

It is easy to be caught up in jingoistic fervor. It's easy not to register all the incremental changes that go against your ideals. It's easy to overlook atrocities that are committed "by your team, for the cause." It only takes mental gymnastics we're perfectly capable of as a species.

You know who has the government's ear? Ultra rich people. And they feed the legislators the horror scenario that higher taxes would mean they take their money and all their business and all the jobs attached to those to somewhere with lower taxes. And then they won't get more in tax revenue while at the same time increasing benefits spending. It's the billionaires' lose/lose scenario. It's a powerful narrative. The only way to fix this is to have all countries adopt similar tax codes. And that is about as likely as Putin getting the Nobel Peace Prize.

Are social media the root of all problems? No. Do they have a significant influence? Yes.

You mentioned spineless billionaires who eff around. There are instances of real harm. There is bullying (everywhere), there are schemes to make groups depressed (teenage girls on Insta), there is a lack of moderators that lead to genocide (Myanmar). These things deserve to be looked at by legislators when the sycophants don't do it by themselves.

Social media addiction is a thing as well. Addictions in young people are bad. Parents should be on the front line of this. But that does not absolve social media companies from taking measures to curb certain excesses. Tobacco companies are not allowed to advertize to toddlers either.

So saying they're just a tool, like, say, a hammer is insincere. You can use a hammer to cause real harm. You can deploy social media to cause real harm.

One of the greatest issues of social media is scale. People on the fringes of society who would be largely outcast in their communities can group and organize with much more ease. In the past, this was limited to the pub in three sheets to the wind discussions. Now you get sh!t like Q Anon, flatearthers, vax nuts, etc. - stuff that common sense in smaller communities would have moderated or stamped out now gets mass appeal. They seem much bigger as an online presence than they often are. But they get dedicated believers to start shooting.

The introduction of the internet has been compared to the introduction of the printing press in Europe. Both events caused a quantum leap in the dissemination of information with profound influences on society. After the printing press we got a century and a half of conflicts and wars. We'll be well off if all we get here is a century of people typing in caps lock at each other.

We limit things in society. The availability of nicotine products, alcohol, the ability to drive, the availability of weaponry, antitrust laws, environmental protections, etc. I think we will not get past regulating social media somehow. By which I mean I don't know how either.

One thing that is certain will benefit society is investing in education, teaching media savvy-ness to young children and all adults if possible, giving them the tools to sort the relevant from the distorted. We are largely unprepared for this and I include myself here having grown up with papers and landlines. But education is the saddest item in any budget, as the costs are high and the results take a generation to bear fruit.

Trump wants to dismantle the DOE...

No. The label horror story, sadly, applies to all. I suppose I could have worded it differently, had I expected the least generous interpretation being applied to what I wrote.

Not being asked a version of this question every other day or so.

It might be helpful to know where this is.

The easiest answer regardless is become active in local politics, try to get into the municipal government, and allocate funds to building up infrastructure in your area.

You probably don't. Those tummy acids are strong. I would wipe the surface with soap. Maybe submerge them in water if you can immediately place them in direct sunlight afterwards to dry them out again. Wipe surface again and hope for the best. I would water an un-vomited-upon Birk along with the offender, maybe not in the same sink water, to wear them out equally.

Constitutionally, it is spelled out in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

So foreign policy is principally a federal government domain, established by cases heard by the Supreme Court. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C1-1/ALDE_00001097/

There is a somewhat gray zone where neighbors can talk to each other on the state level, e.g. Maine and Quebec. But they will find themselves restricted by what the governments one step up have decided. I think certain states also are on friendly terms with other nations, probably to deepen economic ties. But that's more on the level of a city friendship than actual foreign policy.

I think several factors play into its lasting popularity.

1. The series was written and first made into movies at a different time. A time when being a misogynists alpha male was aspirational for many, many more men. The unexpected success of the first movies created the foundation to an intellectual property that generations of mostly fathers introduced to their mostly sons. It never went away. Even in years where lawsuits prevented making new movies or when the latest installment of the franchise was considered controversial for whatever reason, the popularity stayed high. And the older the series gets, the more controversial everything becomes.

2. Very few movies have what I would call a great coherent plot. They are going through checklists: we need a bonkers villain, a weird henchperson, a fancy car, at least one love interest, a gadget, a plan for world domination, and a witty line or two. Throw in a location in the Caribbean or the snowy Alps and that's the formula. It's Batman from MI-6 in London, really. It's a comic book story that tries to seem somewhat realistic, in each movie's release year's contemporary time. And the more time passes the less jarring the obvious differences to reality become, and the more they are enjoyable as "leave your brain at the door"-popcorn-eating entertainment. Also, I think, the fact that many actors have played different roles over the years, sometimes overlapping with other cast changes, mostly unaddressed in the films why that happened, added to this "brain at the door"-ishness.

3. They've gone with the time - to an extent. Where Sean Connery bedded every (young) woman he met and discarded them with a pad on the butt saying things like "man talk," Daniel Craig's lady conquest numbers were much lower and the sex less gratuitous - within the formula. Pierce Brosnan's Bond was called a misogynist pig by his female boss. Under the stewardship of Broccoli/Wilson, the second generation in charge of the franchise, they have incrementally changed the formula.

4. Because the series is so long lasting, there is tons of free publicity in the media, e.g. who will be the next Bond? Will be be less sexist? Will the female lead be more than a conquest? They don't really need to buy ads for this. Also, there are plenty of companies willing to product place for a hefty price. If there ever was a time when the makers were considering if this was still of the time, the economic interests will surely push those progressive thoughts aside.

I think that if we lived in a world where the Ian Fleming idea had not been adapted into film during the early years of the cold war, nobody would greenlight this project today. And it is its entrenchment in popular culture that keeps it going.

The appeal is definitely more male but I know women who like Bond movies as well. I know this is very stereotypical: men look at the Aston Martin, the gadgets, and the boobs, women at the dresses, the pretty scenery, and how well the Bond girl stands up for herself. And while I'm sure that a subgroup of men looks at the Bond character as a role model, I would say the majority knows this is fiction and just a tad less comic-bookish than Ironman. It's the male version of a cheap romance novel on a silver screen with more mass appeal.

If this has not become clear from this dissertation: I'm a fan. I can enjoy these movies without wanting to revert to 1960s gender role models. I also know it's not for everyone.