Hmm, but what if it acts unethically? What if Grimm's right and it has a hand in the death of quite a few people. Is that censorship? Or asking to take responsibility for flaws in the machine?
The decision years ago or GCC to deliberately obfuscate its inner workings so that it was impossible for proprietary plugins to be created (but also free plugins also) heavily contributed to the dominance of LLVM. GCC is still the only compiler for a couple of obscure architectures and the main compiler for most linux distros, but it's starting to lose ground there too. And the tooling ecosystem has totally moved to LLVM basically.
And they have had little if any focus on the Web until recently, it feels like they're still living in the 1990s. Stallman's departure might have been helpful in getting them to start broadening their horizons a bit.
Increased innovation created through more competition (eg: vertical farming). Also, all the issues associated with mono-cultures.
I don't think comparing agribusiness to other industries is going to help. Yes, factory farming is more efficient, which makes it cheaper. But the price we pay doesn't necessarily reflect the actual costs to our health and the environment.
Having massive farms does not guarantee a lack of competition though. Lack of competition requires a very, very small handful of corporations to own most of the farmland producing a particular crop.
Additionally, large farms seemingly are more well suited for polyculture (i.e. small farms are more predisposed to do monoculture farming given their smaller scale).
I would have agreed literally with that statement fifteen years ago. Since then, however, the trends in Russia towards state control over independent press, the politicisation of sports and culture, the blurring of lines not to be crossed (e.g. the annexation of Crimea) and overall clinching of Kremlin power at all costs have made lots of people in Europe worried.
I also wouldn't say "Russia is the enemy", for a number of reasons: first of all, it's not true; secondly, it's not helpful; and thirdly, it obviously breeds distrust and antagonism not only between states but between individual people.
But tensions have obviously been rising, and we are not in the pleasant situation we saw 20 years ago when Russia seemed to be heading towards democracy and increased international cooperation. The current regime in Russia, with its increasingly authoritarian and nationalistic pursuits and somewhat erratic foreign politics, has certainly been feeding those tensions. It would be disingenuous to claim it hasn't.
Russia's whole political culture is the one of conquest. Their ambition was pretty much always to conquer as much of Europe and Asia as possible, and the mindset haven't changed in XXI century - neither among elites nor among common folk. They're still pretty much a typical XIX century empire, they didn't yet go the shift to focusing on economic domination that UK, Germany, US, Japan went through since.
PCI and USB bus standards include dynamic enumeration but ARM SOCs normally only use them as external interfaces.
IP blocks inside the SOC itself usually just expose their registers on an AXI bus with no enumeration support at all, this is most likely the case with the M1 gpu.
> It's unbelievable that anyone can hate Facebook so much that they side with authoritarian regimes.
Who is doing that here? 2 Things can be bad at the same time. Just because people are critical of FB in the west it doesn't mean they support authoritarian regimes.
Facebook is an unstoppable entity we all "hope" will do the right thing by us. But, the reality is that it and all the people beholden to it will do whatever it takes to stay operating.
The funny thing is, Facebook CAN be stopped: if people don't use it, it vanishes. The existence of Facebook is 100% in the hands of the users. The problem is: 3 billion users with wildly varying options, beliefs, and attitudes. There's got to be a name for this paradox.
I think that very well captures 95% of the effect.
I also think the 5% which doesn't fit relates to the individual profit motive. I don't know how users of social media profit in the spirit of the CAP. I would replace "profit motive" with "ignorance that their passive involvement enables" the destructive direction social media is heading.
A corporation is much easier to get away from than a government. With a corporation you have a choice in whether you want to deal with them. Government not so much.
This is a quaint idea, and I’m sure it was true once. However, in the world of shadow profiles and invasive tracking techniques, it must also be easy to decide whether you want _the corporation to deal with you_, and it is simply not.
The East India Company was a de facto arm of government; chartered as a state-protected monopoly. There’s plenty of examples of things that aren't formally states or formally linked to them taking advantage of weak or absent states to exert extreme power over people's lives (and plenty of examples of systems without a distinction between private power and public authority at all, e.g., feudalism), but the EIC isn't one of them.
There is always someone that takes the most egregious examples they can find and then say "well if don't have strong government this will happen" ignoring all proportion and scale to any of these matters and the current reality we live in.
It is simply a deflection from the central point that frequently the state will involve itself in things that it really shouldn't be involving itself in. This is frequenly because it must justify its ever increasing size. Saying that the state should have well defined responsibilities shouldn't be controversial. What those should be is a different conversation.
No it isn't a quaint idea. I am aware of the existence of shadow profiles and it doesn't invalidate the general point. Them having a shadow profile of me is an annoyance and is rather minor one at that.
However I have no such choice when it comes to Government. Whatever they choose to decide I have to abide by or face fines, jail and other reprocussions. Some of those decisions maybe just which aren't a problem. However some of them maybe unjust. If those decisions are unjust I have almost no direct way to address it especially if I am in the minority.
I’m not so sure. I can think of plenty of places that are beyond the reach of my government but well within the reach of most the big tech companies. This might be less true if you’re from the US or China or maybe one of a few other countries.
What device would you use? How would you find information? It’s all possible, but not straightforward.
There is likely a good sci-fi or black mirror plot in here somewhere.
If I don't want to use an Apple or Android phone I can buy something else. I have a choice.
If I don't want to use Windows or MacOS, I can use an alternative operating system. If I don't want to use Google's search engine there are many other alternatives. If I don't want to use a companies webmail solution I can setup my own.
It is very simple to not deal with these tech companies.
> It is very simple to not deal with these tech companies.
You may find it easy, and well done if so.
Every step you have listed there is quite hard, even if you let some through (Apple in my case). Some of the things you are cutting out are very good, and that’s how they get you.
Most of it you don't need. I think Stallman is a loon but he was right about the proprietary code making people slaves to it (but probably not in the way he intended).
There is still lots of stuff I kinda have to use but I've managed to massively reduce my use of most of this stuff.
Obviously if your job/business relies on using this stuff then you gotta use it. I wouldn't advocate that you put yourself out on the street for the source code freedoms.
People have been confusingly propagandized about propaganda. That technique for manipulation has been around for a very long time, convincing people that your lies are priveledged secrets. It checks so many boxes for fufilling emotional needs with utter bullshit. It flatters the believer and gives a scapegoat to mean they don't need to try to understand nuanced issues, trade-offs and the cure being worse than the disease. It also provides an easy answer that doesn't mean admitting to yourself that your friends and family have frankly gone far beyond differences of opinion to become outright terrible people.
I have personally concluded that there is no practical difference between credulity and corruptability - both make it easy to get them to support and commit evil. I can only conclude that a lack of critical thinking is a moral flaw in itself as strange it may sound at first blush. But really if greed can get people to do bad things nobody would deny that it is a moral flaw so why should credulity be any different?
>"It's unbelievable that anyone can hate Facebook so much that they side with authoritarian regimes."
Who exactly is siding with an authoritarian regime here? The article indicates it was a unilateral decision on the part of the government. The article also states:
>I't has drawn a heated response from the Government's opponents, with Opposition leader Matthew Wale labelling the ban "pathetic" and unjust."
Freedom to spread false information indiscriminately does not work with an uneducated populace. Heck even the US can barely hold it together right now.
Perhaps the trick is to be capable of using analogies.
"Facebook is an authoritarian regime." means "Within the context of users' actions on the platform (and actions of non-users that are nevertheless tracked by the company), Facebook acts in ways that are analogous to how an authoritarian regime acts towards its citizens."
My laptop screen bends 180 degrees fully flat on the desk, I use this configuration with an external monitor but no external keyboard. Maybe that's how you would use this system most of the time, just plug an external monitor and ignore the built-in one.
