My argument was that you can’t claim the moral high ground based on legality alone. I understand that nuance exists in the context, but moral high ground does not come from whether or not it’s legal.
My argument was that you can’t claim the moral high ground based on legality alone. I understand that nuance exists in the context, but moral high ground does not come from whether or not it’s legal.
I see what you’re getting at, but I think ‘moral high ground’ might not be the phrase you’re looking for.
Laws and morals are explicitly different. That’s why juries exist, so that a law may be put against the morals of a situation and the morals may prevail if need be.
Breaking the law isn’t necessarily immoral. It’s just illegal. So it isn’t like someone breaking the law is seeking to take the moral high ground in the first place, nor does that mean that someone who only ever follows the law always has the moral high ground. Lawful-evil does exist.
Maybe that’s the point. Unity caves immediately to the big lawyers and says “Sorry guys, we tried. Looks like all you little studios will have to pay up after all. Blame Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft”
I bought my oneplus 10 pro for sub $500 during a sale, and it has usb3.1. It’s last year’s model. You can get a pixel 6 with usb3.1 for less than $400. A Galaxy S21 has usb3.2, less than $500.
That’s almost every major android brand for $500 or less with 3.1 or better. The cheapest you can buy an iPhone 15, the one with usb2.0, is $800. What are you on about?
And soon, the carrier pigeon breeders will start tagging them with tracking chips…
Easy to say if you have several thousand burning a hole in your pocket.
Modus operandi for apple, too. “Get one because everybody has one” is one of the biggest marketing tools they push to sell their tech.
I’m not disagreeing with you. But the trade off is price. When you pay $2.5k more for a phone/tablet/laptop/desktop/watch/tv/speaker setup than you would for all of those things individually with industry standard features, they freakin better work together seamlessly.
Well designed and beautiful are two very subjective words for a discussion about objective differences.
I think that iphones are bland and kind of ugly for their caliber of technology. My last phone was the sage-back pixel 5 and I absolutely loved the design of that thing. The thing is, looks alone don’t constitute superiority.
I’m on the same page as you. It should be noted, however, that the kind of exclusivity you find repulsive actually works as a selling point for apple. It’s like, “Buy an iPhone! All your friends have them and you want to be able to talk to them right?” Peer pressure is a hell of a drug
I’m personally so tired of defending android to iPhone users. At the end of the day, it’s personal preference. IPhone is a walled-garden, curated and closed system that has features that are more uniform and well developed across the whole brand. Android has custom options for a huge variety of things that iPhone can’t match simply due to the nature of android’s open system. Android also tends to have significantly cheaper modern options, but iPhone tends to get OS and security updates much longer.
They both have huge market shares and neither can fill the other’s niche well enough to bump the other out. It’s not a competition, it’s just preference. Is it really such a big deal to point out that teens prefer one over the other? Once the next generation comes to an age of owning phones, we might just find that they find iphones lame and old and swap back to android. That’s kind of how generations tend to work.
Get a different keyboard, bro. Changing your default keyboard has been a thing on Android for like a decade and a half. Even so, most keyboards these days have a shortcut that’s basically ‘long press the wrong prediction -> don’t predict again’
Also, the android settings menu has had a search function for a few years now. You don’t have to know where to look to find most things.
Oh, like a little kiss
The first step is to make it illegal to sideload “illegal” apps. It’s the step that sounds reasonable that less informed people might agree with or at least not protest. The next step is to arbitrarily decide what makes an app illegal. By that point, it’s too late to protest the actual law.
It’s like the law in Florida making the punishment death for sexual assault on a child. That sounds fine until you realize that their legislature has announced their intent to make wearing clothes opposite your gender in public into sexual assault on a child.
Unilateral restrictive laws, without specific stipulations or conditions, even innocent sounding ones like this, are one bad actor away from being changed to a political weapon.
Do you know that donation to Mozilla don’t (and can’t legally) fund Firefox development, right?
Two lines on a graph don’t prove that statement. What you’ve proven is that the chair of Mozilla is making more as the market share is going down. Now connect the dots with a source that shows why those numbers matter and you’re golden.
“We won’t use it for that even though we could”
Is just the first step in a series of corporate decisions that inevitably leads to
“We know we said we wouldn’t, but we didn’t realize how much money we could make”
Google took “do no evil” out of their mission statement. Why would you trust them to stick to their word and not develop this tech in a way that helps their own ad platform make money?
Me either. I left when they rolled that rule out in South America last year to test it. Netflix forgot that we went to them because cable was extorting us. As long as the internet remains a thing, there will always be other options.
That’s the dumbest part. There’s no guarantee that this ipo bid is going to pan out. Huffman is betting big, it’s just too bad he’s so full of himself that he doesn’t realize his actions will probably be what causes this ipo to fail.
He wanted to fly under the radar and make changes that look good on paper while keeping the community relatively the same. Instead he made a splash so big that major news outlets are still talking about it months later, and now he’s actively alienating the volunteer work that holds the whole site together.
“Become profitable” is just their stated goal.
I think that their actual goal is to look profitable for the upcoming ipo so that the CEOs can cash a fat check and leave. They likely don’t care about what happens after that.
So the “become profitable while simultaneously destroying everything that made it valuable” platitude is more like “they’re cutting down the tree for the wood without thinking about the squirrels”
Not for the corporations that make money off of extorting a basic necessity from poor people! Won’t someone think of the corporations?