Unfortunately iPhones aren't ubiquitous outside their home market. It would have to be on Android to be really useful in the places this would be really useful, i.e. places where regimes turn off the internet when things go badly for them (current situation in the US notwithstanding).
That's not to say iPhones shouldn't have it, I'm all for that.
Sure, that is still millions of devices. What about other countries?
Home market would imply one country, but given there are billions of iOS/Apple devices throughout the world, this is not really a valid argument to make.
I mean yeah technically you can buy them pretty much everywhere, but outside of the US there are very few countries where they're above 50% of market share. They're below 30% in the vast majority of countries actually
You are absolutely right, and you have indavertebtly hit the nail on the head. This legilsation is supported by parents who would like their children to be able to use the internet, all of it, without any effort on their part to police their children's online habits. There are many parents who give their kids smartphones at 10 years old, or younger, and create Google and Facebook/Insta accounts with fake ages for their kids to use, and let them at it. No supervision, no discussion, no parental controls. This renders any action on the part of the tech companies moot, as parents are proving that their pre-teen kids are adults by providing false information. Kids then go online, go into Snapchat or whatever, cue torrent of DPs and grooming. Quelle surprise!
Schools in the UK spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with this, and in almost every case it turns out parents have no idea what their kids are sending/seeing online.
So the result is that bad parents demand bad legislation so that they can, in their minds, transfer responsibility for parenting their kids to the state. The state, well meaning rather than malicious, massively overreaches in its attempt to provide an answer. As a result everyone else suffers. And the 'majority of the public' think parents should parent, rather than making it the government's problem, and butt out of their internet.
Welcome to life in a society. We pick winners which by extension creates losers.
So you would be arguing that we shouldn't protect children from social media which is causing significant harm to them because it might inconvenience a minority of adults.
Privacy isn't free and comes with its own costs. I give up on a lot of things but I also realize programmers and ops people need to eat too, and servers, bandwidth aren't free.
As a European I have to ask - do you really need another argument? If I stand on a platform for government in Europe with an arguably fascist agenda I will get called out as a fascist and will lose. Never mind if I am a convicted felon, rapist, and probable russian intelligence asset. Seriously, what are you guys thinking here? Americans would actually vote for an extreme right wing candiate just to prove a point to the dems? Just to get one over on the libs? Please explain.
The AfD in Germany got a higher percentage of the vote in Thuringen in Germany than any other party. Currently polling higher than any member of the governing coalition nationally.
Geert Wilders - successful in the Netherlands.
Marine Le Pen - possible next president of France.
The Freedom Party of Austria - has been in government.
In italy happened the same "nooo you can't call them fascist"
Freedom of protest was, in fact, restricted in italy in a way that it affects climate manifestations more than lobbies manifestation - we have taxis striking and blocking cities if someone wants to touch their ungodly privileges -
Journalist striked on the public news because news has become unreliable, propaganda spewing news at a level before unheard of
It didn't happen, but Giorgia meloni wanted to abolish the crime of torture to better allow police to do its work (lmao even)
At the season opening of the teather la scala di Milano, one man shouted "viva l'Italia antifascista" (long live antifacist italy). Police was sent to check his documents and similar intimidatory shit
Fascist has become an overused word by the left. Everyone else (the majority of the american voting population it would seem) are tired of the label and tune out anyone who accuses someone of being a fascist.
The response from the left has been to double down and accuse more people of fascism.
Yeah, you all keep making that point. But I don't believe for a second that a single voter went with Trump because the libs had called them mean words.
Well your belief is wrong. The libs have spent years calling people of certain backgrounds, ethnicities and genders as fascist, racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, deplorable.
I know that they have, but that's not why people voted for Trump. You just like to say that to try and make it look like something the libs brought on themselves.
And as you agreed, Trump does the same, more than anyone. So unless you are openly stating "the left should behave more decent than the right if they want votes", there is a problem in your logic as well.
Yes he has called people fascist in some of his speeches. Now compare that against everyone on CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Hollywood, etc etc etc relentlessly calling people names for nearly a decade. The difference is a thousand fold. There is no equivalence in quantity.
If this is really your perception, then you live in an incredibly well insulated bubble. If we are including media and pundits, I can assure you that the vitriol that has been coming from the right for well over a decade easily compares.
I'm asking people who don't like the result of the election to stop labelling everything Fascist. I'm trying to be helpful.
There is no right wing equivalent to the institutions I mentioned: CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Hollywood, not to mention schools, universities, tech giants like Google, Apple, Meta etc, all of whom lean left and have shown biases in their actions.
Please try to entertain the hypothesis that maybe I'm not the one in an incredibly well insulated bubble
America was under a fascist ruler, but not under a fascist system of government.
Trump tested American democracy by consolidating power and was not successful, so we avoided being under a fascist rule
The fear is that we might get to test democracy again, and most of America doesn't seem to mind that. Maybe it's due to lack of understanding, not caring, or genuinely wanting fascism, I don't know.
They are fighting an alleged "culture war" and also call it that way. I also think that Trump's movement is very spiritual, almost like a cult.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that based on common criteria the term Fascism is adequate for Trump's movement. I'm not claiming that it's strongly related to prior Fascist movements. These occurred in other countries at other times and I leave it to scholars to make comparisons if they must.
It's sometimes written with a capital F because it's a name, sorry if that offends you. I'd like to change them to small letters but can't edit the original post any longer. Other than that, the only argument I can see is an ad hominem, which is kind of pointless. I do have credentials for talking about the topic but I won't bother you with them because it would only lead to more ad hominem attacks.
Calm down Jonathan, I was just trying to get a clarification on your point, it wasn't flamebait. Besides when I asked the question the other response hadn't been posted.
I'll now stop talking to you Mr. Strange.
I live in a very Republican area and know quite a few people who do vote only on the one issue of pro-life. I don't think many of them would actually agree that Trump is an adulterer or a criminal though. They would chalk it up to Democratic lies or political attacks using the legal system as a weapon.
Heck, I know quite a few people who are very strongly religious and somehow view Trump as a good Christian candidate. That one really blows my mind, unless they've changed the ten commandments entirely since I was growing up.
> I live in a very Republican area and know quite a few people who do vote only on the one issue of pro-life.
it is an important issue.
> Heck, I know quite a few people who are very strongly religious and somehow view Trump as a good Christian candidate. That one really blows my mind, unless they've changed the ten commandments entirely since I was growing up.
What makes it bizarre is not things like adultery (a fundamental tenet of Christianity is that we are all sinners) but that Trump is clearly not a Christian. He does not even know the basics of Christianity - remember when he wished people "Happy Good Friday"?
For sure. I don't take issue with anyone voting based on whatever they care about in general. I don't feel strongly enough about one topic to be a single issue voter, but I get it for anyone that does feel that strongly.
> What makes it bizarre is not things like adultery (a fundamental tenet of Christianity is that we are all sinners) but that Trump is clearly not a Christian.
100% agree. No one is perfect and I wouldn't expect anyone who is religious to always fit the bill, but Trump is an example of someone very far from any religious ideals. I was raised Catholic, if Trump were catholic I don't think he would have had time outside of confession to even run for office.
> was raised Catholic, if Trump were catholic I don't think he would have had time outside of confession to even run for office.
That literally made me lough out loud. Raised Catholic too (been an agnostic since, and some sort of Christian and technically if not theologically a Catholic now).
only European but if your choice is binary, you can only make it that way.
Some Americans may well vote for the rightwing candidate because they want to stick it to the left (or whoever the "anti" would be).
Personally, I don't think that alone makes a majority in that binary choice; in Europe, it would mostly end up in the vote for a minor "ultra" party. And less-"anti" conservative voters have other options.
In the US though, as someone with conservative values and views, one always has to choose ... do I want to vote with everyone else who votes for "my" camp including the stick-it-tos (because there's only one option "on my side"), do I not vote, or do I even vote against what feels closer to me because the stick-it-tos vote for them as well, and/or their head on the ticket is clearly one of the stick-it-tos ?
Am I glad I needn't make that choice. And am I sad what kind of asocial extremes are encouraged by the binary, winner-takes-all US political system.
Get book on high school algebra, plane geometry, trigonometry, solid geometry, and calulus. Study all of them. Then take tests, e.g., SAT, to confirm excellence. After high school, keep living at home, and get a job, even just mowing grass. Take the money and get a bus ticket to one of the midwestern states and apply to a college, not a university, there. Being a good student with good SAT scores, should be able to get a scholarship with $0 tuition. Or work hard, make all As, and then ask for a scholarship, use a work-study program, etc. Go to the available offices and see what programs they have for low or no cost schooling. Then with a high GPA, apply to grad school -- $0, zip, zilch tuition. Get a Masters in something. Let the Masters confirm excellence and f'get about the quality of the high school or even the college.
A niece got PBK at Indiana University, went to Harvard Law, got first job at Cravath, Swaine, & Moore. Left for an MD, and has been practicing since then. Suspect she spent very little on tuition.
As a first grad student in math at Indiana University, I got paid for teaching, had a nice single dorm room, actually lived well, and saved some money.
There are a lot of buttons to push, strings to pull, to get low cost or free college, then free through Ph.D. Being a good student, good SAT scores, already know calculus well, all can help.
I had to teach a doctor’s daughter from Alexandria who showed up to my physics recitation not knowing what a function was, despite having taken AP calculus AB. And how did this happen in the public schools in Alexandria? Because the gym teacher taught it and everyone got 1s. Furthermore, the school board gets bonuses for kids taking AP tests and teaching gifted classes and then hands the teaching jobs out to their sycophant favorite teachers
Starting with first algebra through my applied math Ph.D., nearly everything important that I learned I got heavily from independent study. (1) Loved plane geometry. Slept in class then worked ALL the more difficult supplementary exercises. (2) For my first year of college, went to a cheap state school, partly because I could walk to it. They put me in a math class beneath what I'd had in high school and would not let me take first calculus. For their class, a girl I knew also in the class told me when the tests were, and I showed up for them. For calculus, I got a copy of the book they were using, not a bad book, and started in and did well covering the first year. For my sophomore year, transfered to a fancy college, took an oral exam on first calculus, then got into their second year, did well, and was caught up. (3) Linear algebra? Sure, went through Halmos carefully word for word. About a fine point, wrote a letter to Halmos and got a nice answer. Also worked through Nering's book -- Nering was a student of Artin at Princeton. Later did a lot in linear algebra applications, e.g., in statistics, numerical issues, etc. (4) In grad school, got pushed into their course in 'advanced linear algebra'. When the course got to the polar decomposition, I blurted out in class "That's my favorite theorem!". Blew away everyone else in the class. Partly intimidated the prof. In grad school took an advanced applied math course then in the summer went over the class notes word by word. Wrote the prof a letter improving on one of his theorems. Back in class, took a 'reading course', and from the study in the summer saw a problem and solved it with some surprising math, two weeks. Later published it -- so, technically it was a dissertation.
Point: Self study can work well. Obviously: Once a prof reading research papers, nearly always have to use self study, and the papers are generally much less polished than good textbooks.
So, I recommended to students short on money just to do some self teaching and show up, demonstrate what learned, and ask for a scholarship.
Right. In the US, on politics and the issues, getting the information and "evidence" is a really big problem.
I have and/or have seen good evidence for all that I mentioned, but such evidence is NOT wanted by or common in the media which means that I have no well written, comprehensive, single reference to give.
Uh, YOU try: Write a document with good evidence, details, quotes, video clips, etc., and see how much interest the US MSM (mainstream media) has in publishing it!!! I predict you will regard your effort, no matter how carefully done, as a waste of time.
E.g., so far I've never seen even one credible graph over, say, the last 16 years, of, say, the US CPI (consumer price index). Same for budget deficits, spending bills, balance of foreign exchange, Fed loans, spending on the war in Ukraine (was there actually ANY spending or did we, instead, actually just ship war supplies produced in the US?) -- the actual details are absurdly messy, sloppy, missing, etc.
Clearly, bluntly the details do not SELL -- won't get a big audience.
To give good evidence here would exceed by several times the 10,000 bytes or so limit that Hacker News seems to have on a single post.
US media credibility? Here is evidence of biased, cooked up, gang up, pile on, organized mob attack from 2017:
https://youtu.be/f1ab6uxg908
With that example, there is less than zero credibility. So, for your "evidence", don't expect that from the US media.
I wish, profoundly wish, have posted many times on social media, that the US news media should provide JUST such evidence, at least up to common standards of high school term papers. All that is no more than a spit into the wind -- the media does NOT want to expend bytes for such writing, documentation, evidence, etc.
So, here I did all I can do to respond to the question I quoted, apparently, from a European. Agree or not with what I wrote, but it is the best I can do under the circumstances. The question from Europe are not very deep; so I gave answers of similar depth. The speeches in the election were not very deep. The Trump statements at the economic clubs in Chicago and Detroit were deeper.
That's my explanation, best I can do, take it or leave it.
But, really for an accusation of "Nazi", etc. the "burden of proof is on the accuser". The rape? He said, she said. There in the dressing room of the department store, did she scream and get some witnesses? Nazi? Just what is the evidence that Trump has done anything like the Nazi stuff Hitler did? Felon? He has never gotten a sentence -- if he does, then he can appeal, win the appeal, and show that he is NOT a "convicted felon". So, no sentence. The papers case, the J6 case, the Georgia case, the "hush money" case -- all are falling apart due to appeals, etc. They are NOT legal cases but just efforts to misuse the legal system to have others, as here, believe he is a felon. But with the appeals, e.g., even to the SCOTUS, ALL of the cases are falling apart. My view is that the wrong here is from low level parts of the US legal system and not from Trump.
And where are the arguments about 10+ million illegal immigrants, the inflation, the attacks on US fossil fuel energy, the Ukraine war, the Gaza war, the Lebanon war, the hundreds of missiles from Iran, the promotion of biological men in women's sports, the lies about abortion (Trump sent the issue back to the states to decide), the bans on gas powered cars and trucks, etc.?
Anti-Semitism isn't an inherit trait of fascism. It's an inherit trait of Nazism.
Mussolini was in power in Italy 10 years before Hitler was in Germany and he wasn't very anti-Semitic at all. He was influenced by Hitler towards the end of his reign but even then his anti-Semitic policies were mild when compared to Germany.
Part of the problem with calling someone a fascist is that people associate the word with Hitler. But Hitler wasn't the only fascist or even the first fascist.
Ok but I believe the topic is Donald Trump who has been directly, repeatedly, relentlessly, compared to Adolph Hitler, and he and his supporters slandered as Nazis. Specifically. Directly, relentlessly, repeatedly.
So perhaps this:
> Part of the problem with calling someone a fascist is that people associate the word with Hitler.
He'll definitely go away without a fuss after his second term, right? He isn't considering what could be done about the 22nd amendment. Putin extended his terms in office in creative ways, but Trump isn't Putin and has a high regard for established political mechanisms, even if they mean there will be less importance for Trump at some point in the future.
As a European you don't have presidential elections that matter. Executive and legislative power is in the hands of your parliament and the president is a figurehead (if you have one).
If you want to compare your European experience to the USA, you should look at congress and not the presidential elections. You'd probably find the same dynamics there as in your own country, with the exception that the blocs that you have in parliament have been distilled into two parties.
My home country has 3 major parties each at about a quarter of the seats, the rest split between about half a dozen others. The various parties have very different views, only one of them I'd argue is "right wing" in the US sense, and they've all mostly learned to make compromises and not be too divisive, or they face a more moderate party taking their seats.
Every European parliament will form into a "government" bloc and an "opposition" bloc after the election. Right wing / left wing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. The US congress does manage to make bi-partisan bills. Because members of congress can go against their party sometimes. In European parliaments that kind of behaviour usually results in a crisis of government and a vote of confidence.
> or they face a more moderate party taking their seats
That's not right. You cannot lose your parliament seat in any European parliament until the next election. If an MP or an entire party in Europe is too divisive, they might not be able to be part of a majority and they will be in opposition.
In the USA, the executive government is not elected by parliament - so you're comparing apples to oranges. The president builds the executive government after being elected by the people in the states. That's something different.
My company ('systemically important' bank, ~100k enployees) is trying furiously to get us into the office 2 days a week. For many people this is more than was required of them pre-COVID.
What is actually happening is that people come in 1 day but there is nowhere to sit appropriate for development or any kind of 'engineering' work unless they are on site before 8am (no good for those of us with school runs to do). If there's no desk we're being asked to sit at benches or refectory style tables with our tiny laptop screens. The actual result of this is a day of no work, and, being europe, it means a bunch of people filling in the accident book saying they have a neck injury at the end of each day. This is going to get worse as they pressure people to come in without adequate desk numbers. The unions are swamped with complaints (yay for unions!).
If people can find a desk they are surrounded by project manangers or non-technical staff from other teams who are on calls all day with people who are remote, and they themselves are on calls with people who are remote, at home or in another EU country, India/US/etc. No synergy, no quick chats by the water cooler/kettle.
##Remote, virtual global teams do not benefit from being in the office.##
On a more personal note, I'm also finding it's a very noisy, distracting environment. For neurodivergent people (ADHD, Autism) the office is actually really challenging. I find I have to go and close myself in a meeting room to get some quiet at several points throught the day, and I leave early. It's exhausting.
I'd estimate that 80-90% of my team are neurodivergent engineers, cryptographers, or architects, and are actively seeking remote positions. I wholly support their efforts.
I am 100% sure this drive to get people in is because senior management are bored and lonely at home and don't want to come into empty offices. They've paid for these giant offices in London, NY and elsewhere, which cost a fortune, and need to see bums on seats. The way they stay up to speed on what's going on is chatting to people in the halls and corridors, so they don't even really need a computer! They live in a different world.
I'm gonna second gp, I don't know anyone who does photo/video editing, cad/cam or 3D modeling.
In fact, I know more people with > 3 pi's than I do coders. People love them and use them for all sorts. But I don't know anyone who does any of those things.
This is an incredibly silicon valley centered viewpoint. I'm sure the guy makes some good observations, but how can you take anyone seriously that starts with a comment like this? Apple is insignificant outside of the English speaking first world: North America, UK, Aus/NZ. I wish some of these people from those markets would get outside their bubble from time to time. There's a huge market out there that has never used nor wanted an iPhone or any other Apple product.
Not that they are bad, they just aren't all that special.
> Apple is insignificant outside of the English speaking first world
Japan has a higher share of iOS than the US or UK. Also China is ~20% iOS. Sounds small until you realize that percentage equates to more iOS devices than the US.
Also Switzerland or Sweden have a lot of Apple users. All those countries have one thing in common: everything is very expensive there. So people have a lot of money and they can easily afford Apple products.
In Argentina for example an iPhone is around 2500 USD (100% import tax), an average citizen needs to save for a year to afford an iPhone.
An average Argentinian office worker should be able to put 2500$ per year aside. If he doesn't need a new washing machine or new furniture, he could get an iPhone. But he would need to spend all his savings just for one thing.
Grandparent post was speaking about Apple generally: "There's a huge market out there that has never used nor wanted an iPhone or any other Apple product."
Yup. The starting price of an apple computer in India is almost 10 times the median salary of a young worker / executive.
You will not fine Macs in India, except in the 1%, or in movies.
I am sure that is true for most of South Asia.
It's Windows all the way down. There is a huge black market for pirated windows copies here and a decade back, the standard PC setup was a basic Intel based system, loaded with pirated windows os on a cd that costs about 2 USD.
The UK doesn't have an NHS, nor NHS app. The UK has four national health services, one for each country.
IIRC only England has an NHS app.
And we have no id cards.
It's not looking good.
Have you looked at (in my case) the iOS app store? They certainly do have just such an app. Sure, I made a mistake thinking we were still United, but there is such an app for England residents.
The key HashiCorp use to sign downloads of such popular tools as Terraform and secrets management tool Vault has been compromised after a 3rd party tool used to scan code was compromised. The key, which doesn't appear to have been held in a hardware device, was exfiltrated to by and to persons unknown.This was a week ago but has received surprisingly little coverage.
