If you want the TV to be on your network (for casting or streaming or whatever) and you also want to filter that traffic (allowing connections only to the services you want to use) then you need it to be on your own network (wifi, if there's no ethernet port) and not on someone else's network (cellular).
It wouldn't even need to use any sort of standards-based DNS-like thing at all, if they control the server (on a stable IP address in the TV's firmware) and the client (the TV). It could be any data scheme (probably https for simplicity and blending in) along the lines of "give me all the other IP addresses I'll need, which aren't as stable as the one in my firmware."
Regardless, what is the benefit of putting the TV on the network but preventing it from doing DNS lookups anyway, even if you could be sure you succeed?
> the government [...] only know[s] that I needed to verify an assertion about my age
This is problematic if a majority of things needing age verification are looked down upon; for example, insurance companies would love to know what people don't do things needing age and therefore don't buy alcohol (at least not online).
The first question is how would the insurance find out that you are doing lots of things requiring age verification? The only body that could tell them is the government, while a distrust in the government can be healthy, I think this is the least thing to worry about, the government typically knows already much more damaging things than how often you ask for age verification.
Moreover, that would only work if there are relatively few things that require age verification and it needs more than just being looked down upon, i.e. while alcohol buying might be interesting information for insurances, watching porn is likely less interesting. Even worse, if the insurance can't distinguish between porn and alcohol (which they can't by design even if the government would give them the information about how often you ask for age verification).
I assume eliminating the "loss leader" concept is the main effect, since shops shouldn't otherwise price things as losses regardless? In which case it seems like it's meant to maintain some friction / overhead for people wanting to visit the stores, possibly reducing consumption at least for the price-sensitive.
In Texas the law exists as well, phrased as cannot offer price below wholesale price for alcohol which in effect bans “bottomless/all you can drink” deals as well. It is indeed designed as a way to discourage consumption
Selling at a loss can also be a monopolistic practice: a firm with enough capital can sell at a loss to capture the market, and then buy out their now-flailing competition.
The restaurant-next-door analogy, representing fungibility, isn't quite right. If BofA is closed and you want to do something in person with them, you can't go to an unrelated bank. If Spotify goes down for an hour, you're not likely to become a YT Music subscriber as a stopgap even though they're somewhat fungible. You'll simply wait, and the question is: can I shuffle my schedule instead of elongating it?
A better analogy is that if the restaurant you'll be going to is unexpectedly closed for a little while, you would do an after-dinner errand before dinner instead and then visit the restaurant a bit later. If the problem affects both businesses (like a utility power outage) you're stuck, but you can simply rearrange your schedule if problems are local and uncorrelated.
If utility power outage is put on the table, then the analogy is almost everyone solely relying on the same grid, in contrast with being wired to a large set of independent providers or even using their own local solar panel or whatever autonomous energy source.
In many analog pro audio applications, it's actually recommended that a shield be connected at one side only, for this reason. By convention but not necessarily necessity, the bond is typically kept at the receiving end, as that's almost always a device with a grounded power cord (such as a mixer). Many DI boxes feature a ground lift switch as a convenient way to achieve this. But you wouldn't want to disconnect it at both ends, as then the shield has no effect at all.
Anyway, if you had problems with your unshielded cables that would be solved by a shield, but your shielded cables caused a different problem due to the bond at both ends, this technique of using shielded cables but severing the shield at one end of them would get you the best of both worlds.
Huh, I had no idea that cables would have their shield grounded at both ends... Single point ground is such a standard in electrical design that the guidance is generally "do otherwise only if you have the ability to make many prototypes to nail RFI issues".
If you're building an audio cable your signal will peak out at a few kHz, so the cable acting as an antenna and picking up a signal in the MHz range isn't an issue. Similarly, you're not transmitting anything significant either. But a ground loop can easily ruin your day.
If you're building a cable for multi-gbps data transmission, that ground loop noise might as well not exist - it's basically DC. But ground your shielding at only one end, and suddenly you're ruining everyone's wifi!
Building a device which needs high-speed data on one side, and analog audio on the other side? Good luck...
No, the comment correctly points out that the "Soup" button (and all of its siblings... the food categories) is inoperable when JavaScript is disabled. You're stuck with "All" instead of nice filtering. There are ways to achieve this without JavaScript.
ah, gotcha. that would be nice, but tbh it seems rather minor? anyone who knows how to disable javascript (an extremely-clear "power user" signal) can probably be expected to know how to search a page too.
It's just peculiar especially since the repo readme [0] specifically says "Minimal JavaScript - Only when truly needed" and yet it's used for this food category filtering, a feature for which JS is certainly not truly needed.
reply