Include a repairability index and a consumer rights index. Louis Rossmann already has something like that on his wiki, he'd probably be glad to collaborate with you.. https://consumerrights.wiki/

In political science, the term polyarchy (poly "many", arkhe "rule") was used by Robert A. Dahl to describe a form of government in which power is invested in multiple people. It takes the form of neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. This form of government was first implemented in the United States and France and gradually adopted by other countries. Polyarchy is different from democracy, according to Dahl, because the fundamental democratic principle is "the continuing responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens, considered as political equals" with unimpaired opportunities. A polyarchy is a form of government that has certain procedures that are necessary conditions for following the democratic principle. So yeah, you are right. A representative "democracy" is not a democracy. It's a monarchy with more than one ruler. A gummy bear is as much a bear as representative democracy is a democracy. I didn't know that, because i was taught in school that a representative "democracy" is a form of democracy. And the name makes it sound like one. But it isn't. It's not even supposed to be in theory. I am sure 99% of people living in a representative "democracy" don't know this. I hereby encourage everyone to abandon the word representative "democracy" in favor of polyarchy or maybe oligarchy. This makes it much clearer what we are talking about. Also i doubt the authors of this article know this, because they imply that representative "democracy" is desirable, but it is obviously undesirable.

I get that, but it's more logical to me that of I'm going to whistleblow on a company to not use one of their devices to do it. That way it doesn't matter what apps are or are not secure, you're not using their device that can potentially track you.

Sure: for professionals. However when casually commenting in a forum it is fine because the reader can go check the citations (and perhaps come back and add to the thread).

Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.