I don't have much to say about the points you're making here. I have a feeling after we sit down and discuss this over coffee/a beer we will find out that we're pretty much on the same page.

The only thing I want to point out though it that the term "enshitification" was coined for online platforms. It describes a business catering full hog to the needs of the users to create a following, then sell access to that following to other businesses, until both followers and b2b customers are locked in and get milked for every cent possible. From the user POV that's when the service enshitifies ~~DVD~~ and the b2b customers are between a rock and a hard place. Your cable example follows a similar mechanic but since it is not online it is technically not enshitification as dumped into the world as a term by Corey Doctorow.

That's just minor pedantry that you're naturally free to ignore as well. As I said before, I don't see us disagreeing on the overall point you're making. Very eloquently, I might add.

Edited typo

If I were a breaking bad meth dealer and had all my buyers as contacts on that phone and all my incriminating chats, I wouldn't use biometrics to unlock it. But I'm not a meth dealer (and I'm not just saying that because that's what a meth dealer would say).

There is a spectrum of convenience vs. security. It depends on where you sit. I'm okay with the fingerprint, wouldn't go for the face.

Doesn't Android have the panic/cop switch where you force password over biometrics unlocking? It's not a 100% failsafe but it is a start.

Technically, they don't have to be. They could elect a venerable whippersnapper cardinal - Dan Brown wrote a book about that. And that tells you how likely that is if he wrote the story. But it is possible.

It would be rare because it takes seniority to get into the position. And politics to be well liked enough to be put forward and then elected. By mostly old people. Some of whom would like the job themselves.

If Apple were the only player on the block, at least in Europe they would be under a lot more pressure. But they're not. There are other OSs (although only one really matters), there are other phone makers.

Antitrust is more reactive. There is a market, a dominant player, said player plays unfairly, the authorities react. That reaction takes years to go through all the levels of courts available. By the time we get a final ruling, the market has long moved on. The corporations know that too. As long as the lawyers are cheaper than the money they stand to lose they will carry on.

And in Apple's defense: the mobile operating system market is not that old. And it's not clearly defined. And as long as there is wiggle room they can do whatever they want. Part of the problem is that the legislation dealing with antitrust on either side of the Atlantic is like copyright law: no longer fit for purpose.

when i wasn’t there 24/7, she’d abuse substances, harm herself, and the like. she reported hearing voices, had sleeping issues as well.

I think that answers your question. We all do real silly stuff in our teenage years but what you're describing here goes beyond that.

Mit Tendenz nach rechts.

Word of mouth and time. Lots of it. All the ones that need you to be your own algorithm will take longer to gain acceptance with the general public. We'll need a few more Muskerbergian s-storms to motivate people away from the silos as well.

You're trying to apply conventional logic to this. Stop. They only want more power and money and they would say anything to get it.

Most of us don't have the luxury of choosing our families. We can just try to do the best with the hand we're dealt. I'm sorry for your loss.

Maybe delete the picture, put the phone down, and try to think of 20 great things about your grandmother.

I don't think they know for sure where it will end up but no matter what it will be, it will be brilliant, it will be the greatest, and it will have been the plan all along.

Rich people like to keep their money. So the only objective right now is to dismantle the oversight within government. It's not government efficiency they're after but removal of impediments to big business interests. That's the Melon side of the plan. It's his ROI. It's also is MO. Tabula Rasa everything and then build anew. It didn't work for Twitter. I don't think it will work for a federal government. We've already seen lots of unintended side effects. Oops, we fired the guys who look after the nukes. Lives will be lost here and there but, cynically, not enough to mobilize the masses.

It is of course worrying that Trump said as much as wanting to enlarge the US again. I'm not sure yet if that's just a dead cat he's thrown on table to distract us from Melon or if that's really the plan. It worried the US NATO ally Denmark enough to massively increase their defense budget over Greenland. Trump likes to be contrarian. He feeds off the stir he causes. He never built the wall, Mexico never paid for it. But he reveled in the reactions. Greenland could be a similar thing but I'm not sure yet.

It's worrying me the amount of sh!t the lgbtq+ community is getting, especially the T. There is danger there. I don't think Trump cares an awful lot about this issue, he just likes it as a way to unite the sleepy, the anti-woke behind him. But there are people behind him and with power now that do care, that do want to please their leader. And that creates a maelstrom of zealous a-holes trying to one-up each other with cruelty to score browny points with the boss. When I think this through, I fear citizen liberty is most under threat here.

I don't believe a world war with nukes is what they're after. You cannot really prosper as a corporation if the planet is barely habitable due to the radiation and the nuclear winter. It would be bad for Wall Street. But they wouldn't mind a few conflicts comparable to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. While nukes have been threatened, they haven't been used. So it's a conventional war and that's good for arms manufacturers.

In simple terms, Trump's cozying up to Vlad actually decreases the threat of a world war III, at least in the short term. It reduces the number of trouble hotspots. There were big ones between the US and Russia (until January 25) and between the US and China. Trump parroting Kremlin talking points and showing the rest of NATO the middle finger reduces hotspots with Russia. Russia is on relatively friendly terms with China and could probably meditate issues between China and the US. At least in the short term, that's not a bad thing. But it isn't stable. It remains to be seen if Europe plus Canada plus X can fill the vacuum and that would reignite hotspots with Russia again.

I do agree that climate change poses a threat. I don't think the billionaires worry so much about it beyond buying New Zealand and blanketing it with villas with bunkers. But it is a threat to maintaining order when the people get hit with more severe tornados, droughts, etc. Best way to maintain order is an authoritarian government.

Trump is vindictive and petty. He would take revenge somehow. Whether it is just a very STABLE GENIUS tirade on lies.social or trade sanctions or a threat to invade the country is anybody's guess. But they're all on the table and he's got the eternal memory of an elephant. That's why every leader knows they have to go in with some honey first. They pay him a compliment or bring something he wants or likes. Then they can play hardball if they have to but you gotta appeal to the frail ego first. And that's why few leadership people will call him stupid in public or even to his face. They will hide the stupid medicine in some rhetorical sugar until their country is economically and militarily independent from a Trump government.

I am no leader, praise the heavens, and I wouldn't call him stupid. He's uneducated in many areas outside real estate development. He's got the interpersonal maturity of a 4yo. But he is street savvy and media savvy. There's a reason why he is this popular with his followers.

Party manifestos are dreamy wishlists for a parliament, in which they have the absolute majority. Merz's CDU tories did not win one. He'll need to form a coalition. Most likely outcome is one with the SPD social democrats. Coalition talks have a way of grinding these wishlists down. And they take time. So keep a watchful eye but it's too early to despair.