I had a Lenovo X200s for over 4 years and finding a viable replacement is almost impossible.
I am saddened by the fact that there are no i7 / 16GB / highDPI with decent keyboard at the price of a 2015 Retina MBP.
I'm sorry but no, he doesn't get it. Mandating a browser is just another stupid policy - either write web apps or don't but claiming to get it when it's just another lock in is a silly move.
In enterprise environments where most users don't even have admin rights on their machines you need to pick at least one browser that you know will be deployed across all machines in the entire organisation. They chose Chrome(the right choice IMHO). Especially given that people are moving away from using windows choosing something cross platform is a must.
If it had an extension that could give me the hours of my life back that I have spent trying to support their awful browsers that would be great though.
The consumer market is a totally different game though, IE is being crushed in that market. I have made several consumer facing apps in recent years that do not support IE at all, users can still log in but a warning notice is shown informing them it is not tested in IE and they need to upgrade to a "standards compliant browser".
Having said that I wouldn't mind a popularizing of using appropriate contracting or oath taking for specific statements to ensure truth and factual knowledge. Much as we do with oaths in court and perjury. I could see that system being workable (though in theory I guess that is what oaths of office entail so it might only be workable due to novelty).
In regards to the other two evangelical preachers should probably need to specify in advance that there is significant empirical evidence in direct contradiction to their statements before making them publicly.
In the case of the vaccination debate this should definitely be a crime, there is significant empirical evidence to prove that what anti-vaccination campaigners say is false. There is some precedent for this regarding the claims of chiropractors in the US which went to trial and found that they were lying about the efficacy of their treatments. (Also on a side note why would anyone listen to a completely unqualified "celebrity" over the opinions of someone with a PHD in virology or epidemiology. Most of the anti-vaccination campaigners are not adequately qualified to have an opinion on the matter anyway).
Also I feel that it's whether it is for personal gain is a big factor, if you are just ignorant that is unfortunate but not necessarily malicious.
There are also examples here(in Australia) of companies being fined for misleading the public, a notable example is "balance bracelets" being recalled from sale here due to false claims.
That being said despite the similarities between the two there are some pretty large cultural differences between the US and Australia which may make some of my points moot. In general Australia favours stronger consumer protections and government regulations, a free and independent publicly funded media service(ABC) and very negative political campaign adds often backfire and lower the public perception of the person making the attack rather than the other way around. Additionally Australia does not have any explicit legal guarantees of freedom of speech akin to the US constitution so some forms of speech, such as overt racism, are already illegal and people can be denied entry for public statements which indicate "bad character" such as holocaust denial etc.