Yes, it's always going to be unfeasible to cross the Atlantic or Pacific by train.
But the vast, vast majority of air journeys taken every day aren't trans-oceanic ones. Most journeys are between destinations within the Americas or within Eurasia and Africa. There are an awful lot of journeys by plane that could be moved to trains if the infrastructure was right.
That seems to be a rather unfair assertion to make. Boeing seems to be unique amongst the big airlines in having these problems; and they're relatively new problems for them too, in the grand scheme of things.
I've never once heard of systemic issues of this sort at Airbus, and it seems lazy to do a "they're all the same!" when this really does seem to be a Boeing problem first and foremost.
Realistically Google Search and Google Maps don't provide anything unique that isn't provided by competitors, although a) they may provide a superior experience, and b) the competitors are not necessarily much more palatable (that is, Bing Search and Bing Maps are hardly a great ethical improvement).
YouTube is probably the only Google service where this is a genuine monopoly of sorts. That is, content that is on YouTube is not generally available on other platforms, and if you want to watch that content you have to watch it on YouTube. We might all live for the day when all content creators are dual-hosting in PeerTube or the like too, but we're a long long way from that right now.
Although I write that as someone who only very rarely actually uses YouTube, because largely the content isn't to my interest. Other than my local football club's channel, I can't think of anything on there that I actually seek out.
If a machine is going to have multiple users (all my computers have multiple profiles for family members) all those users have to be called something, and I've not got the energy or the creativity to come up with fun and funky usernames for every system when my actual name is more than good enough.
An EULA is nominally a binding contract, in the sense that it is presented as such. No court has ever ruled and given precedent to the effect that EULAs are universally non-binding (because companies have always settled out of court for cases where it looks like they're going to lose).
It is well understood that the arguments against EULAs being binding are solid ones, and that the reason why so many cases settle is because companies are not confident of winning cases on the strength of EULA terms, but you still need to go through the rigmarole of attending court and presenting your defence case. That's how court cases work.
Edit: And perhaps more to the point of the OP, if you want to sue a company over some defect or service failure, it'll be them who introduce the EULA as a defence, and it'll be for you/your lawyers to argue against it. Which adds complexity and time to what might otherwise have been a straightforward claim, even if you win.
If a company takes you to court, you can't just decide to ignore them. Either you/your representative turns up on the designated court dates and presents a case, or you'll most likely lose by default.
If it was possible to make a court case go away just by ignoring it then everyone would just do that.
It probably isn't legal most places. EULAs are already considered fairly flimsy in terms of enforcement, but changing an EULA after you've already bought a device, in such a way as to reduce your statutory rights, is almost certainly a complete non-starter.
I used to be a bit iffy on Dell years past when their reputation was largely as commodity shovelware and overpriced premium kit. But honestly, they've evolved over the years into by far my favourite of the big mass manufacturers. Not only is their hardware generally solid for the price point (with a few exceptions), but their customer service is absolutely second to none. I've never had such smooth and helpful customer support from any other hardware manufacturer, big or small.
That alone puts them leagues ahead of HP and Lenovo for me.
Everyone loves Brother for good reason.
I've had a decent experience with my Xerox too.
Different countries and states obviously have different electricity source mixes.
Here in the UK, coal accounts for around 1% of electricity. Natural gas is about 35%, biomass about 5%, and the rest is various clean renewables (wind, solar, hydro) or nuclear.
So although charging an EV is by no means fossil-fuel-free, it's considerably less fossil-fuel than an ICE car.
For comparison, grey hydrogen currently costs around $2 per kg, and green hydrogen costs around $12 per kg. Filling a Toyota Mirai tank with green hydrogen would cost you about $70. That's production at today's electricity prices. The cost to fully charge a Tesla is about $15, same rates.
So for green hydrogen to beat grey hydrogen on the open market, costs need to drop by a factor of 6. And because it can only do this if electricity prices drop off a cliff, it'd be doing this in an environment where you can fully charge a luxury BEV for $3...
Hydrogen is also not the only game in town in terms of competitors with BEV. For those niches where fully battery-operated vehicles aren't practical, there are also biofuels, which are (from a climate change point of view) greener than green hydrogen anyway (although they have their own controversies).
Looks like a standard GTK4 app to me. Whether or not that is to someone's tastes is obviously subjective, but it uses the same design language as every other GTK app under the sun.
GTK apps always look out of place on Windows though. Looks far more sensible in its native environment (i.e. *nix running GNOME).