The implication is: that by it’s nature -All Science Is Good® All science is cool. Is neat. But not all good. There a many genies, we suffer from that we can not put back in the bottle. Some of us ‘Science for a living’, and still don’t think ‘All Science Is Good’.
proven. there’s a list of new inventions that were proven safe in 1950. Do we think they were just idiots back then?
Also its about directing cash from the sale of ‘Golden rice’ far more than about having these folks afford good food.
https://grain.org/en/article/10-grains-of-delusion-golden-rice-seen-from-the-ground
I’m no expert but these folk are almost
While many doubt the ability of golden rice to eliminate vitamin A deficiency, the machinery is being set in motion to promote a GE strategy at the expense of more relevant approaches. The best chance of success in fighting vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition is to better use the inexpensive and nutritious foods already available, and in diversifying food production systems in the fields and in the household. The euphoria created by the Green Revolution greatly stifled research to develop and promote these efforts, and the introduction of golden rice will further compromise them. Golden rice is merely a marketing event. But international and national research agendas will be taken by it.
The promoters of golden rice say that they do not want to deprive the poor of the right to choose and the potential to benefit from golden rice. But the poor, and especially poor farmers, have long been deprived of the right to choose their means of production and survival. Golden rice is not going to change that, and nor will any other corporately-pushed GE crop. Hence, any further attempts at the commercial exploitation of hunger and malnutrition through the promotion of genetically modified foods should be strongly resisted.
[ confirmation bias at play. you have switched to bluetooth. it meets or exceeds all your needs. you don’t see much public indication to the contrary. you figure bluetooth is the best. ]
simplicity the cable just works. no configuration. no pairing .un pairing, figuring why it worked yesterday
Audio quality - bluetooth is lossy. we just were given AptX lossless in 2021
( another confirmation bias ) “Sounds great to me” “I can’t hear the difference”.
2 things are both possibly true though: I can’t hear the difference. Other people hear a big difference.
this seems impossible to some people. As if their senses are the apogee of human sense.
lag. new codecs lower latency, but lag lag lag. You couldn’t possibly use your device as a synth/music instrument and ‘play’ the lag is far to great. Same with games.
whats the big deal. This is a bias for the plug users - would it hurt to keep it? we’ve always had it. The work is already done. Its already baked in the cake, why you gotta take it out?
Investment - I have really good headphones. I have really good earbuds. Yes there are adapters but they are finicky exactly when you want them to just work. They inevitably break. They often downgrade the sound - I have 3 usb to audio adapters for android that all hiss for no reason.
The issue is that when the marketers are selling us a ‘clean vision of the future’ they purposefully gloss over the things they are taking away. Then they paint the people who feel pain because of the change as neanderthals who wouldn’t know better if it bit them. When they do know better. They had better (for them) and progress made it worse (for them). To which the marketers generally say - you should be someone else.
167532282 :-) good times
**sorry, that’s just being human. **
What about the one sided ability to change a contract??
A year from now Roku pop up says “Click to Accept” , the text says **"this contract means you’ll have to give us your first born child? ** My reasoning says if they can do one then they can do the other. There is nothing that would prevent them from adding ‘fees’, or ‘subscriptions’ or simply turning off the device. (!)
This is egregious. We bought something. In normal commerce, the contract was set in stone at that moment. The seller can’t roll up 2 years later, change the contract, force you to agree before you can use your device, and then say , well maybe if you beg, you can opt out.
Security is always temporary. Security puts an obstacle in the path of the treasure, it doesn’t seal off the treasure. That’s not how the real world can work. Bury it in concrete, seal it in steel. If the owner can get it, with enough time, the theif can too. Perfect security isn’t real.
Should they be forced - how can you? There are a thousand vulnerabilities to every product, its just that we don’t usually care so much. This is the idea behind many openSource ideas. We all know. In reality, businesses make and keep secrets.
It already is a social contract. It just seems important because now it’s concerning something we care about.
This is the struggle of law and order. To create laws that are never self-contradicting. Laws that don’t need exceptions. It’s hard math. Each society decides what IT values, and then makes laws around those values. Every fireman has a protected right to not simply break in to my home, but destroy my home in order to save lives inside it. It happens every day. They don’t come with keys, they come with battering rams and axes.
two things are different though- We trust them, based on years and years and years of faithful service. They are honest.
the second, is their actions always leave Clear evidence that they did something. I wouldn’t come home and wonder if the fire department has been in the house. I would see the broken window and smashed in door and know. With the phones - we don’t know if anyone was in, and this is very very different. There’s nothing that prevents the phone from flashing a bright red warning that its been opened from the inside - except if the person disables the alarm :-) but its possible.
17 years ago Apple stated that they have a ‘kill switch’ for the apps, and this is similar. What do you do if a million phones go wild. If you could have set up a kill switch, would you regret not doing it.
What does it mean? It means that people who use these things HAVE to put trust in the person who made it. In the same way I have to trust in VW or FORD if I sit in one. There is no using the thing, without putting a tremendous amount of trust in the person who made it.
Sure is nice of Google to change things for the better of the world. I’m sure they stand to gain nothing from this. < /sarcasm>
Ah, common misconception - hacking an API != creating a compatible program. ( reverse engineering)
Imagine a drill company has a special shape for its bits. Our law allows someone else to either… make bits that can fit in that shape OR make their own drill that can accept those bits.
“BUT they copied!” - it doesn’t have to be a copy to be compatible, and they don’t even have to use the ‘special shape’ just be able to work with the special shape. The law does not allow for protections around that. Doing so would be by definition anti-competitive. Our anti competition laws or rather our IP protection laws are not intended in any way to ‘ensure a monopoly’. The IP laws give a person a right to either keep something they do secret OR share that knowledge with the world so we all benefit, in exchange for a very limited monopoly.
Practically speaking, If I got the KFC Colonel to give me the list of 11 herbs and spices in a Poker game, and then started making my own delicious poultry that is totally cool. Likewise, If I figured out that all that was inside a Threadripper was blue smoke and started making my own blue smoke chips, the law is ok with that.
In this case roughly, Having a public facing endpoint. And then saying that the public can access that endpoint is cool Saying that only the public using the code I alone gave them – well… that’s not been litigated a lot, but all signs point to no.
It’s like Bing saying its for Safari only, and suing people who accessed it using Chrome. It is a logical claim, but the law does not provide that kind of protection/enforcement.
tl;dr these concepts are old but being newly applied to fancy technology. The laws in place are clear in most cases. A car maker can not dictate what you put in the tank. FedEX and UPS can’t charge you differently for shipping fiction books or medical journals or self published stories. And they’d probably get anti-trust scrutiny they even told you what brand/style of boxes you had to use.
Equity.
In total, at the close of last year, SEC documents show that exactly 65 percent of Spotify was owned by just six parties: the firm’s co- founders, Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon (30.6 percent of ordinary shares between them); Tencent Holdings Ltd. (9.1 percent); and a run of three asset-management specialists: Baillie Gifford (11.8 percent), Morgan Stanley (7.3 percent), and T.Rowe Price Associates (6.2 percent). These three investment powerhouses owned more than 25 percent of Spotify between them — a fact worth remembering next time there’s an argument about whose interests Spotify is acting in when it makes controversial moves (for example, SPOT’s ongoing legal appeal against a royalty pay rise for songwriters in the United States).
Furthermore, according to MBW estimates, which my sources suggest are still solid, two major record companies — Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group — continue to jointly own between six percent and seven percent of Spotify (Sony around 2.35 percent and Universal around 3.5). With Sony and UMG added into the mix, then, the names mentioned here comfortably own more than 70 percent of Spotify.
https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/who-really-owns-spotify-955388/>same. reddit is populated with users who’s comments are generally indistinguishable from those of a 12-15 year old.
why don’t they ever add the “… in this survey” part at the end?
Yea, that Linux thing will never amount to much with this kind of strategy.
But wait. …
It’s all fun and games till the baby blows up when it really really shouldn’t blow up. And I personally, would rather have people learn that pain an email than learn that a million people are in pain because of their ignorance/bad work.
I respectfully, and fully disagree with you.
However, what those dealers are leaving out of their argument is that BEVs are not the only vehicles sitting unsold on their lots.
In fact, new-vehicle inventory is at a two-year high, according to Cox Automotive research.
As of the start of November, new-vehicle inventory volume in the US was sitting at a record 2.4 million units. It is safe to say that those are mostly gasoline-powered vehicles since the inventory level is currently higher than the number of EVs that the US will produce all year.
The truth is that the current interest rates have affected all automotive sales, EVs or otherwise.
It’s true some of those people who placed reservations for EVs last year are reconsidering their purchases now, as highlighted by the >group of dealers, but that’s not because they are not interested in EVs anymore. It’s because they can’t afford the several hundred >dollars more for the monthly payments now, thanks to high interest rates.
Some wont Stock them https://electrek.co/2023/05/09/us-car-dealers-evs/
Thanks for saying this. It’s features at price point.
“It’s better than the Pi at only 3x the price.”
And what’s with the “Avoid the Raspberry PI” sentiment? They are hard to get (?). I’ve been using the Pi for forever, and have zero ‘product’ complaints that would make me want to "Avoid the Pi’. If anything, I have plans for more. Again, the price - A Zero2W is $15 MSRP. For $15, You can put that in everything. A Pi4 is $35. Its just a great deal.
Do we allow people to choose how they indoctrinate their children? We all are. We all were. The only question is who’s indoctrination.
They don’t own anything, the modified something that came with the planet, and they want everyone on the planet to be forced to use it, and them to pay them for the privilege. I’ve never been to Msto HQ but I’d give Dollars to Donuts that that is printed on the wall.