"When being unethical brings in so much money, how can you expect them to act ethically?"
How is this materially different than if I started a GoFundMe saying I needed money for my mortgage and other bills, but actually using it to take a huge vacation? You see, if I didn't take that vacation, I would have burned out from my job, lost it, and then been unable to pay my bills (after my savings ran out).
I don't have to prove you wrong, I'm not making an assertion. It's on you to prove that your assertion is correct, and you have nothing more than your opinion backing you up.
Saying that these services are "not VPNs" is unnecessary pedantry. Definitions evolve over time, and these services meet the common definition of a VPN.
You're assuming that they're thinking something completely outside of anything they've ever said, and something that nobody actually wants. Your assumption is the one that's out of left field, not mine.
This is not true. The commercial breaks in all US pro sports have a pre-determined length, and the game action will not resume until the broadcast has rejoined (outside of a mistake somewhere along the line). In the NFL, they have a countdown timer on the stadium scoreboard indicating how much time is left in the commercial break, and even a dedicated guy who stands on the field next to a referee, talking to the TV truck to confirm when the broadcast has rejoined.
I think you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of what Tailscale does. It's all about accessing your own devices. You don't need or want anonymity in that case. They are not a general purpose VPN service, and can't even be used as one.
Of course the NFL would never allow a 7 minute commercial break, although I do believe that the cost is linear. A 60 second commercial's cost is simply 2x 30 second commercials. There's no reason to do anything differently, since in the end it doesn't matter if that 60 seconds are filled by one or two commercials (aside from making the ad sales team's job slightly easier by having one less spot to fill).
You also have the conspiracy theory that says that the most outlandish conspiracy theories are amplified much more than they naturally would be in an attempt to discredit all conspiracy theories. Which I do believe, myself.
Your opinion on how websites should respond to user preferences is a bit off the wall, to be frank. There aren't many (any?) angry responses here, but there are a lot of responses trying to explain how the current way it works makes sense despite your own opinion to the contrary.
It seems to me like you're just not handling disagreement very well, and that might be something to work on for the future. Especially if you're going to post your opinion publicly.
All you have to do is look at all of the replies to your post here on HN to understand that the majority of users who have their OS set to dark mode actually do prefer websites to display in dark mode as well. This is probably why browsers don't (currently) offer an override option.
You are free to have an opinion, but I'm so confused as to why you're not understanding that it's a minority opinion and that the way things work currently actually do make sense.
Well then communicate your wishes to whoever develops the browser you use. Websites are just complying with what your browser is telling them you prefer. It's your browser that's not giving you the option to change what it tells websites to suit your preference.
How is this materially different than if I started a GoFundMe saying I needed money for my mortgage and other bills, but actually using it to take a huge vacation? You see, if I didn't take that vacation, I would have burned out from my job, lost it, and then been unable to pay my bills (after my savings ran out).
Why defend this blatantly unethical behavior?