This guy went full Gavin Belson. Never go full Gavin Belson.
Here’s how I think about it:
Google’s business model involves advertising to you, tracking your activity, mining your data, and selling that information to other entities while also using it to advertise to you more. It’s their main profit-driver. You are the product.
Apple’s business model is to sell you the hardware, give you the software and make it (mostly) depend on the services to keep you locked in. You (the user) are not the product, their devices and services are.
Of the two, which is the lesser evil?
Normies are not going to fully convert to Linux phones and open-source software any time soon. In the meantime as far as privacy is concerned, Apple can do much worse and Google can do much better.
The issue in one of the cases (San Bernardino) had nothing to do with iCloud data, and everything to do with the data on the device itself. The FBI request was a backdoor into the device. Apple (rightly) refused to add a backdoor to access the phone.
You are referencing data that goes to Apple’s iCloud servers, which Apple was happy to provide because they held the encryption keys. Since then, they have enabled an E2E encryption feature for iCloud data.
I am happy to discuss Apple’s shortcomings, but let’s be clear on which ones we’re discussing
Well yeah they kinda have to at that point in order to continue conducting business in that country. What about this is specific to Apple?
Apple has 2x very publicly resisted government demands for user data and campaigned against laws to institute backdoors into their software and services. They’re not perfect by any means but they are by far a lesser evil.
A fully capable Linux phone is the dream, but most people aren’t going to use one. For the majority of people, I would recommend the company that refused to listen to the US and EU about weakening the security of their products over the one with the business model of relying on advertising to you and selling your data.
This is probably in my top 3 favorite Bo songs , especially the latter bit:
You argue and you bicker and you fight
Atheists and Catholics, Jews and Hindus argue day and night
Over what they think is true
But no one entertains the thought that maybe God does not believe in you
You pray so badly for heaven
Knowing any day might be the day that you die
But maybe life on earth could be heaven
Doesn't just the thought of it make it worth a try?
My love's the type of thing that you have to earn
And when you earn it you won't need it
I'm not gonna give you love just 'cause I know that you want me to
If you want love then the love's gotta come from you
What wiki article? My source was Reuters.
Regardless, all I can only comment on is my own take of the situation. And that take is his priorities conflicted with his campaign promises. This makes it harder to give my vote to future campaign promises by other candidates of the same political party.
See the source in my previous comment. The 31% increase was a total over a period of 5 years (so in 2027 any workers left will get that amount), the jump from 1-4 days off came after Biden’s involvement concluded and yes, the original request was for 15 days off. 7 is less than half of 15.
To answer your question, the unions eventually accepted these terms, but the bill signed by Biden prevented workers from being able to strike again on this issue. This, coupled with the lack of their requested sick time and 5 year waiting period for their agreed upon raise, made clear the focus was on getting the workers back to work, rather than actually addressing their grievances. In short, nothing fundamentally changed. They were just told to go back to work.
Once again, how is this “nearly all” of their demands?
How are 10% less raise than they asked for, 1 additional day off instead of 15, and the inability to say no or continue striking to be “nearly all” of their demands???
This Reuters article frames my issues with this event in the clearest possible way.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-signs-bill-block-us-railroad-strike-2022-12-02/
"It was tough for me but it was the right thing to do at the moment -- save jobs, to protect millions of working families from harm and disruption and to keep supply chains stable around the holidays," Biden said, adding the deal avoided "an economic catastrophe."
"That fight isn't over," Biden said of the push for sick leave.
Biden’s focus on was on the economic impact going into the holiday shopping season, not the best interest of the workers. So he inserted himself to make sure that, qualitative demands be damned, there wouldn’t be an interruption to the flow of commerce.
I wouldn’t have been so upset at the outcome if the workers who didn’t agree were prevented from continuing to voice their displeasure. It reeks of “shut up, take this handout which is peanuts compared to your original demands, and get back to work.”
And the most substantive demands revolving around healthcare coming out of a pandemic were almost totally ignored. This is something a corporate administration does, not one who is looking out for the people, or concerned for worker’s rights.
Biden ran on affordable healthcare for all, and when he had the opportunity to provide even a tiny example of that, he prioritized economics over wellbeing for the people.
It sums up most of Biden’s term: too little, too late. Nothing fundamentally changed.
Ron Watkins. He slipped up and outed himself in a documentary: https://www.vice.com/en/article/q-accidentally-outed-himself-but-qanon-followers-dont-care/
I highly recommend the documentary: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14215442/
dudleyflippendoodle
0 post score0 comment score
They don’t do much of anything when they are in power, that’s the problem. Much of this blame can be placed on Chuck.
Example:
They controlled the House, Senate and Presidency in 2021, Chuck Schumer was Senate Majority Leader, and still didn’t grant Dreamers legal status because a Senate Parliamentarian, a position with zero actual power, said they couldn’t.
Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-senate-rules-decision-that-blocks-democrats-from-putting-immigration-reform-in-budget
This was one of their campaign promises and when they had the opportunity to do it, they backed out at the last second.
When they do have power, Democrats do not wield it.