It’s an extremely bizarre suggestion given your request. I do want to defend the game (though not the suggestion) a little though.

It initially presents as you say, but offers you opportunities to fight back in your capacity as border control. Letting in the right people can help the resistance and incite a coup, or enable you and your families escape from the country. It isn’t just Be A Good Tankie Simulator 2013, though you can play it that way too.

Bell and Rogers actually don’t share their towers in Canada.

Exactly this. I have a couple of small projects that are MIT licensed specifically because I don’t care how people use them or what they use them for. If someone finds it useful then they’re welcome to do whatever they want with it.

This idea that I’m being somehow hoodwinked or taken advantage of because the thing that I explicitly said could be used freely is being used in a way that doesn’t align with the values of some other completely uninvolved third party is beyond absurd.

Use standard cruise control when the passing lane(s) are clear(er) so they can pass at their cruise speed at leisure without either having to speed up or hold up traffic behind them to perform the pass.

This works fine with adaptive cruise, just change lanes before you reach the adaptive follow distance.

Okay. But why are you turning on adaptive cruise in the first place if you don’t want it at all on the highway? You say you want to switch it “quickly and easily”, but it’s not like you just wind up on multilane highways without warning.

Surely you notice that you’re coming up on someone and can switch to the left lane before you’re close enough that the adaptive cruise starts slowing you down though? It kind of sounds like you just don’t want adaptive cruise at all, since you want to turn it off any time it “adapts”.

That doesn’t explain anything. I’ll be more clear.

Can you explain why it would be necessary to suddenly need to turn off adaptive cruise and switch to fixed speed cruise?

Can you explain a scenario where that would be necessary? Given that adaptive cruise slows you down below your target speed to follow traffic all I can see that doing is either nothing on an open road, or accelerating you into the vehicle in front of you.

Tapping the brakes has immediately turned off cruise control in every vehicle I’ve ever driven.

Touchscreen of any type

I think a touchscreen is fine as long as real buttons exist for things a driver might want to manipulate while driving. My Outlander has a fairly large touchscreen that offers media and navigation control, but everything else (climate, drive modes, cruise control/drive assists, windows, locks, etc) is real buttons and dials, and there are also an extra set of basic media controls on physical buttons as well (volume, next/prev track, tuning).

I’m quite happy with that. And the passenger still gets all the touchscreen bells and whistles if they want to explore the map or set up playlists or whatever.

Sure, but even for small highlights where you’re going to be hitting HDR peaks past 1000 nits or so you’re still getting into painfully bright territory when viewing it indoors under normal conditions. Does anyone actually want specular highlights in outdoor scenes to be literally difficult to look at directly as if they were real 10,000+ nits reflections of sunlight?

I understand pushing 2000 or even 3000 nits on mobile device displays though. Sometimes there’s a need to compete with direct sunlight when viewing outdoors.

Exactly my thoughts as well. At 1000 nits peak the OLED screens I have are already painfully bright under “ideal” viewing conditions (i.e., dim lighting), and easily visible in poor conditions (sunny day, curtains/blinds open). What on earth are they building them brighter for? Outdoor daytime viewing?