(Which is not to say that the combination of abysmal customer service and poor communication skills is unique to startups, but with most companies -- outside the cable/mobile phone/ISP realm -- it's not yet standard.)
Just contact my rep's office. (She's generally very good, and I'm guessing she'll be on the right side of this, but it can't hurt to give positive reinforcement, especially since she's on the House Judiciary Committee.)
No one's going out of their way to cut the deaf or blind out of the international conversation, but demanding all US sites be compliant with the DOJ's requirements is like demanding all books be made available in Braille and audio format. It's something only a few publishers can afford to do.
You (the general you) don't have to go out of your way to cut deaf or blind people out of the conversation. You just have to keep on doing what you always have, and the conversation will forever be exclusionary.
It's worth noting that just about every gain in access for people with disabilities in education, public businesses, accommodation, etc (including those we all now take for granted) came about not because the free market saw a need and met it, but because lawsuits or other concerted (and usually adversarial) action made it happen.
Applying accessibility requirements to all sites may be overkill, but a state university -- a public institution -- should be held to the highest standard. I'd argue that this is an endeavor that merits additional (and specifically designated) federal funding. Make it a "space race", but to incentivize development of non-proprietary technology to make video -- and the Web in general -- more accessible.
So when the courts wouldn't allow terrorists from coming in, that was good as they are always right, but when courts want to search an iPhone, that is bad and they are always wrong?
That's the thing, though. It wasn't a court that authorized the search. Had border agents actually gotten the courts involved by seeking a warrant as required by the 4th Amendment, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Thanks to the vagueness of the threat claim, we now have a very public massively-crowdsourced effort to figure out how laptops and Kindles could be dangerous in a cabin but not in a hold, while phones would be fine either way.
Along the way someone will figure it out, then find a way to make phones equally as dangerous, at which point say goodbye to all electronics in-flight.
We'd be forced to go back to paper and pencil. But pencils are very pointy, so we'd probably have to stick to crayons. But crayons could contain all sorts of scary ingredients, so we could only bring on-board TSA-approved crayons purchased post-security. Or possibly only in-flight, just to be safe.
Upon reflection, I've changed my mind. These don't sound like unintended consequences after all.
I have no family and I'm independently wealthy. I'll make it my mission in life to fuck with the authorities. If they grab me at the border, watch for me.
If you're independently wealthy and would like to help other people who aren't, you could file suit (but while at the border/around CBP, act in a way that makes your suit more likely to succeed).
Or you could just fuck with the authorities. But that doesn't help anyone else who isn't wealthy, who might be subject to violence based on their background, who has family, or who is otherwise vulnerable.
I'll be traveling internationally next month. I don't plan to wipe my phone or use a disposable phone. (My phone doesn't have anything especially sensitive on it. And I'll be logging out of all apps etc.)
I also have no plans to surrender my password to CBP. (Easy for me to say now, I know. I hope I'd manage to commit to that when confronted with the possibility of my phone being seized and me being detained for a day or two.)
But then I have the privilege of knowing that I'm unlikely to be targeted by CBP in the first place, not because of any special virtue I have, but simply because of my name and my appearance. Others aren't so fortunate.
While global warming can be stopped, it cannot easily be reversed due to the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Solomon et al. 2009; Eby et al. 2009). Even a thousand years after reaching a zero-emission society, temperatures will remain elevated, likely cooling down by only a few tenths of a degree below their peak values.
AC also wrote:
From the US point of view, if we can't stop it (which I don't think we can no matter what we do) why hurt ourselves before the pain needs to be felt?
Because while we can't stop global warming entirely, we still have time to mitigate it.
Because global warming will exacerbate international and regional conflict.
Because the U.S. economy is connected with the rest of the world, and isolationism would have catastrophic consequences.