I would be happy to see a system in which one could charge users of his software if they make a profit from using it, while allowing non-profit users to use the software for free. Even smaller businesses would be due to pay their "Post Open Software tax" if they make a profit.

Concerning the "If your film makes a profit, you're doing your books wrong" problem, maybe exclude employees' salaries (and also subcontractors' expenses on salaries, recursively) from expenses, when computing profit for the purpose of "Post Open Software tax"? This would effectively tax employees, who earn a salary from using the software, because employers would pay some money as "Post Open Software tax" instead of paying it as part of the employees' salaries.

Another idea is to allow companies, which directly support Open Software developers to deduct this expense from the "Post Open Software tax". Or maybe let up to 65% of this kind of expense be deductible from the "Post Open Software tax". Maybe even give tax credit to companies/nonprofits/individuals, who spend a lot of money sponsoring Open Software projects, which are critical for their business, and also benefit other "Post Open Software tax" paying businesses.

Forcing people to use voice control of their cars is also an accessibility problem for speech-impaired people. Several deaf people are also speech impaired and cars' speech recognizers may fail to correctly recognize their speech.
Fortunately my car still uses buttons for most functions. The only function I use in my car, which needs touch screen use, is Waze and I interact with it when my car is stopped anyway.

Get all those idiot protesters to read the Hamas Charter and listen to a lecture about it, and then pass a test about it.

Refusing to go through this needs to be fireable offense.

Anyone who continues to support Hamas after the above needs to wear a T-shirt labelling them as supporters of rapes and assassinations of Israelis.

The Charter of Hamas – HRC fist special session – NGO statement (World Union for Progressive Judaism, Association for World Education)

On the other hand, Stephen Hawking boycotted Israel at 2013.

In addition to space settlement, I suggest that people and their leaders learn about Third Level Wealth.
0th level wealth - living from paycheck to paycheck.
1st level wealth - Buckminster Fuller. Rich Dad vs. Poor Dad. Can survive without having to work.
2nd level wealth - same as 1st level except for resilience against wealth-wiping disasters. Insurance. Moats around your castle. Generators. Water recycling equipment.
3rd level wealth - society set up to quickly recover from disasters. Superfluous workforce is employed at training. Everyone as something to do if he wishes to. Social status is measured by ability to contribute to speedy recovery from disasters.

For more information, google for "Third Level Wealth".

I wonder how can hearing-impaired or speech-impaired people use those systems for ordering.
Especially when the staff are trained NOT to help them.

I wonder how will he be accessible to deaf people if he refuses all kinds of text based communications.

What did the parents expect to happen after all those thousand years, during which children were taught to talk with the Imaginary Friend (euphemism for God) in heaven?

'Nuff said.

Simple and letting them off gently:

MGVFS for Microsoft Git VFS
or
MSGVFS for MicroSoft Git VFS

As a way to transport energy, hydrocarbons are much safer than batteries.

This is because hydrocarbons are dangerous only when they are mixed with oxygen, and it is possible to put a thick wall between them without impairing the efficiency of energy extraction. On the other hand, batteries are based upon separating, by a very thin membrane, two materials that would shortcircuit and burst into flames if they were to touch each other.

Another considration is the effective energy density of hydrocarbons relative to that of batteries. The high energy density of hydrocarbons is thanks also to the fact that one does not need to transport oxygen (unless one goes to space) - it is available for free when the fuel is burned to release energy.

Therefore, the most logical solution to the CO2 problem is to use solar energy to convert it and water back into hydrocarbons, which will be burned again. Airplanes and cars won't need to haul heavy batteries.

We need technology which uses solar energy to convert airborne CO2 back into hydrocarbons. The technology is to be deployed in deserts. They hydrogen could be provided by pumping water to those deserts.

For transporting large quantities of energy, hydrocarbons are better than batteries. They are safer than batteries, because the technology does not depend upon making barriers, among different chemicals, as thin as possible. When using batteries to transport energy, you must transport both materials which react to release the energy. When transporting hydrocarbons, you need to transport only one material, because the other material (oxygen) gets transported for free in your behalf by Nature.

The biggest drawback of the technology is the entrenched interests in using fossil fuels from deep in land and in sea. Those interests would face huge losses if people switch to usage of solar-created hydrocarbons in their factories, cars and airplanes.

I wonder if anyone made statistics of workplace male-male bullying incidents and compared it to statistics of male-female bullying incidents.
Men are, on the average, less sensitive about being bullied at work than women.

... if we invest in systems which use solar energy to convert airborne CO2 back into hydrocarbons.
Unfortunately, the gas producing establishment is too strong to push this solution, which will annihilate their profits, which are based upon extraction of hydrocarbons from Earth's depths and burning them.

There is a scene in Zardoz in which the group of "Eternals" gangs up on one of its members and harshly punishes him for his crimethought.
The witchhunt of the Google engineer reminds me of this scene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...