XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.comp.os.windows-10   
   From: robin_listas@es.invalid   
      
   On 2026-02-09 23:34, Maria Sophia wrote:   
   > Carlos E. R. wrote:   
   >>> Just like with leaded gas, they can't just ditch the higher-octane-rated   
   >>> fuels without actually changing the engines, although truth be told,   
   >>> knock   
   >>> sensors retard timing nowadays when engines feel detonation pinging.   
   >>   
   >> No, ditch the lower rated.   
   >   
   > Hi Carlos,   
   >   
   > Well, what would the advantage of mandating worse & more-expensive gas be?   
      
   I don't remember. Having a single hose, for instance, saves money.   
      
   >   
   > The octane rating is a measure of how resistant a fuel is to auto-igniting   
   > (knocking) under compression in an engine where Premium gasoline typically   
   > has slightly lower energy per gallon than Regular (because the blend and   
   > ethanol used to raise octane lower the energy density at the same time).   
   >   
   > Drivers would pay more for less   
   > There's no advantage whatsoever (for cars that run fine on Regular).   
   > No extra power, no better mileage, nothing.   
   >   
   > Just higher costs for worse gas.   
   >   
   >>> If a new vehicle gas-cap door doesn't have a sticker saying that the   
   >>> higher   
   >>> octane rated gasoline isn't needed then there's zero advantage to   
   >>> using it.   
   >>   
   >> The maker recommends the higher, but the car adapts and the vendor   
   >> recommends the lower.   
   >>   
   >> I did my own testing, based on mileage, and decided to stay on the lower.   
   >   
   > Check the BMW forums from about five or ten years ago where I ran extensive   
   > tests for a couple of years and there's no measurable benefit to Premium.   
   >   
   > However, I would caution people who are scared to not run the test since   
   > under high speed high load high heat conditions, the piezoelectric knock   
   > sensors might not be able to retard the timing enough to prevent knocking.   
   >   
   > But nobody on the planet who knows anything about chemistry would ever   
   > claim that you get better anything from premium gasoline for a vehicle that   
   > is running correctly and which is designed for the regular gas blends.   
   >   
   > It's not possible to get better anything with the wrong gas in the engine.   
   >   
   >>> The *first* time you log into the Google GMail app on an Android phone,   
   >>> Google *creates* the mothership account (if it's not already   
   >>> created), and,   
   >>> in my tests, Google *AUTOMATICALLY UPLOADS* your contacts since you   
   >>> have no   
   >>> chance of unchecking the default setting until *after* that happens!   
   >>   
   >> Uploads to my account space. This is fine and I want it. Does not   
   >> share it.   
   >   
   > How do you know that Google will never be hacked?   
      
   Does not count.   
      
      
   >>> Most people don't realize this but Gboard can read the contacts sqlite   
   >>> database, and that's "just a keyboard" (or so they think it is).   
   >>>   
   >>> As I said many times, privacy is a million things, but most people only   
   >>> know about half a dozen of those things which we are discussing here.   
   >>   
   >> You confuse privacy with secrecy. And you tell people having different   
   >> ideas they are rude. No, we are not!   
   >   
   > I'm making a normative argument about courtesy, consent, and respect   
   >   
   > Uploading someone else's personal information without their knowledge or   
   > consent is discourteous, regardless of the uploader's intentions or   
   > personality.   
   > It's not about secrecy.   
   > It's about respecting other people's control over their own data.   
   >   
   > The behavior is discourteous   
   > I could use the word "uncaring" though if that sounds better to everyone?   
      
   I disagree. I'm not sharing data, I'm just storing it in my cloud. And   
   keeping it private.   
      
   >   
   > Just let me know which word you like best for the argument, which is about   
   > basic human decency for protecting other people's private information.   
      
   No, because I do not accept your point of it being rude. I am protecting   
   other people's private information.   
      
   >   
   >>> The problem with "private enough" is that many entities have said the   
   >>> same   
   >>> thing, and, well, think about history and all the "surprise attacks"   
   >>> in it.   
   >>>   
   >>> There's a long history of cloud-stored personal data being breached, and   
   >>> contacts/phone numbers are often part of what leaks. A few well-known   
   >>> examples from just the last few years:   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Then there will be fines. I did not share data nor breach confidence.   
   >   
   > How do you know no company whom you interacted with won't be attacked?   
      
   Doesn't count.   
      
   How do you know that a bad person with not pick my house lock, enter,   
   and steal my hard disks? Or a pickpocket steal my phone while open and   
   running?   
      
   --   
   Cheers,   
           Carlos E.R.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)