if youre going against the regime of hyperpathologization please be strong and gentle. people dont want to have their pacifiers ripped out, whether that be by lifting the veil of hypercapitalistic coercion, or simply by making plain the wealth of side effects that can be entirely avoided by ignoring artificial diagnoses and seeking solutions more in line with our biology.
like no shit people are going to be more willing to do the bidding of evil when their decision making apparatus is unnaturally saturated. and no shit people are going to have adhd symptoms in a screen based society. its completely obvious. but me saying that is going to get down voted to oblivion. people don't enjoy having a comfortable narrative questioned; dissent (no matter how minor) is equivalent to full scale assault on perceptions of existence. that being said, i dont blame anyone for this, considering that the entirety of existence is currently geared towards forcing the populace into fight or flight mode, thus rendering null the capacity to exact societal change and disrupt the status quo.
people really do think their best interests are at the heart of billion dollar companies like those producing pharmaceutical goods !
Yep. I still need to say it. I still need this audience, at least time tiny fraction, to hear it. This "community" specifically is so high on it's own supply that these things should be shouted from the rooftops:
- You're a fallible human and your ideas aren't always good
- Disruption isn't always good
- Moving fast and breaking things is a great way to leave a path of destruction in your wake and piss off everyone around you, and isn't always good
- Change for the sake of change isn't always good
Let's boil that down to: the shit you come up with isn't always good. Or to put it another way, rarely does it seem "should we?" is ever considered alongside "could we?".
Finally, as if it weren't obvious: I am not here for fake internet points.
i feel like this is the same as voting independant. it's the right idea in theory, but given the fact that 99% of people don't do it , righteousness is decreased. in this case very literally as having a unique fingerprint is entirely counter intuitive to the idea of privacy
I really want to be in a world where that's true. in the meantime we live in a zero sum survival of the fittest game where the powerful execute the weak for insubordination. in this world it is often necessary to take roundabout paths to reach the objective.
for example, a constitutional representative in my country attempted to place restrictions on unfettered gambling advertisements. a single day later, photos emerged of that politician having dressed as a nazi for a costume party in his youth. that politician stood up for what was right and then got fired for it, by losing his job and his status in the court of public opinion, effectively achieving no change.
exacting change isnt always such a simple process as embodying the end result.
You're confusing Motorola Mobility with Motorola Solutions. These haven't been part of the same company since 2011. We would happily support devices from Motorola Solutions with their collaboration too but have no contact or partnership with them as they're an entirely different company. We want to support more devices meeting our requirements and if people have issues with one of the choices due to their opinions on geopolitics they can use another.
This is a fallacious argument that has been thoroughly debunked countless times, and frankly it has no place on a platform where we expect a baseline level of digital literacy.
Privacy isn't about hiding crimes, it's about limiting how much power one government has over you.
History has shown stuff that’s totally fine today can be treated like a problem tomorrow. A surveillance system built under a “good” government can be handed to a shady one.
You're confusing Motorola Mobility with Motorola Solutions. These haven't been part of the same company since 2011. We would happily support devices from Motorola Solutions with their collaboration too but have no contact or partnership with them as they're an entirely different company. We want to support more devices meeting our requirements and if people have issues with one of the choices due to their opinions on geopolitics they can use another.
all technology companies are to some extent in cahoots with secret agencies. but israel has no room for mistakes, they only work with the best.
no doubt they will ask for backdoors. but no phone is safe from governments anyway - grapheneos or not.
while noble, basically any western system will punish such behaviour as assault ... perhaps this point could be expressed as a prefererence for the law to change such that deprivation of privacy becomes a valid self defense argument ... in the meantime there do exist passive defenses such as face masks designed to interfere with facial recognition
I believe the argument is that introducing personal aspects like this friend foe business inherently serves to increase argumentative bias and reduce quality of discussion. personally this seems like a slop project either way , so regardless as to how beneficial it could be, I'm still going to behave toxically towards it - if you really love or hate someone so much , you would have memorized their name already !
> Chief Executive Zubin Appoo said in the statement. “I am prepared to say this clearly: the era of manually writing code as the core act of engineering is over.”
if i was a software engineer i too would probably think that software is the core of engineering ...
i'd also say the same thing as this c suiter if my company was failing and needed to cut costs without scaring the investors !
reply