Much more advanced than what I use for this, but I use a small palm size drawing tablet with a magnet back from a Japanese stationery company called KING JIM. It's called the KING JIM BB-12. It was like $15-20, and I find it practical for quick jotting and as for my grocery list I can easily tuck away in any pocket.
I think there's something to be said about not carrying a phone-like device into stores, since the whole "cameras everywhere" situation is feeling more dystopian than it already did. I even carried paper lists to not further contribute to that.
He said the thing that Canada, Greenland, Cuba, and various other countries are worried about, but is either publicly ignored in the US or dismissed as "trolling" by the president.
The same old cool-aid: the label on bottle reads "freedom". But if you look at the ingredients: greed, gluttony, looting, bullying, spread american culture, slavery, surveillance - the full nth-amendmend package. Dosages may vary.
Meta == US gov.
It’s another tool in their toolbox. You shouldn’t trust US tech any more than Chinese tech. If anything, probably should trust it less than Chinese tech.
20 million people wearing facial recognition glasses in public, always-on, networked and geolocated, with a Muse agent monitoring the feed, would 1000x the domestic surveillance capacity of current Flock, Ring, Tesla and CCTV cams.
The Fermi probability that you'll be ingested and inferenced by this network on any given day is incredibly high, even if you never buy a Meta product and never create an Instagram account.
It's hideously dystopian and you cannot opt out.
Maybe that's why the Muse avatar is a cute and cuddly Teletubby.
I don't trust the Chinese government but i do trust that they're disinterested in me and don't have much agency over me. My own government is more trust worthy, but have interest and agency in me, so it could be said I trust the Chinese government more.
I think this is something many people tend to miss. The Chinese might spy on you, or steal your data when you use their devices. But for the _majority_ of people living the west, the odds of that actually being used against them are small.
The US government is much more likely to act against their interest than the Chinese.
> “This job was all I had,” Jones also said. “I’m at the age now where I don’t have many opportunities.”
"they might spy on you and take your data but not use it against you", oh that's alright then. Of course, unless you show kindness to those they torture and disappear. Or don't even, but do something the CCP construes as such. So what you're really saying is that you can reasonably expect to never be tempted to show such kindness. That I hear such talk in Western circles by Western supposed peers I already consider a great harm the CCP has done to me.
Totalitarian revisionism, by definition, seeks control of the whole planet, because it must. It can allow other totalitarian spheres if influence, but no non-totalitarian ones, where people are free to experiment and investigate, collect evidence etc. It's like bacteria agree about hating direct sunlight, but being agnostic about the color of the material that blocks it.
It's a two-edged sword. Compared to other governments your own government when good is the best to promote your good. But when bad, it is by far the worst abuser.
It's not so much a matter of thinking one is "better" (for whatever definition of "better") - it's that the Chinese tech and Chinese government are so obviously coupled at the hip while American tech continues to claim independence (all the while paying billions in bribes directly to Trump's family and vanity projects).
Comparing the two like this is interesting but there are fundamental differences. The US today could not delete tech companies, or the people who run them, the way China can its industries—and, crucially, the people who run them. The US’s version is personalist and would not survive even changing to another person other than Trump, not even going as far a a political party shift, which is possible in America.
There is actually a very popular meme in Brazil for what you just did, where a character appears out of nowhere to ask, "What about Lula?" — meaning that if one can find any act (or accusation) of malice from Lula or his party, anything bad the other side does is justifiable and Lula (or his supporters) can't complain.
It's called "whataboutism" in general. The word is used to easily wave away criticism of the other side of the argument without actually addressing it.
Complaining about whataboutism can be its own kind of whataboutism. I wish people I politically sympathize with would stop giving their enemies good points.
Yes, it’s not whataboutism if it’s part of a discussion about bipartisan corruption, for instance. Or when discussing the causes of conflict between two countries. It’s a problem when it is used without context to deflect from the bad actions of one actor or one “side”.
I think there is a difference of a country governing who can say what in that country vs. a foreign company. I don't care if you call it censorship or whatever, it's foreign companies meddling in political affairs.
US companies can meddle as much as they want in US affairs, I don't care. But not in the country I'm in.
By "the government", you mean "courts"?. I understand you may be confused as Trump imagines the law bends to his will, and you never heard of separation of powers.
Can you show us which court order Meta is following to ban Lula's page? Please.
You don't understand, it's different. Back then, it was the bad guys being censored, so it was a good thing. Now it's the good guys being censored, so it's a bad thing.
When the left censors their political opponents, they're "protecting democracy". When the right does the same, they're "threatening democracy". Those are the rules.
Indeed it seems that they only have problems with censorship when their team gets censored but they secretly enjoy their opposition getting censored. As it is the Lula admin mandated that X suppress the speech of about 600 opposition candidates.
The creator of this website, derechadiario, is in jail for murder attempt, corruption, fake news and bot manipulation. It seems his minions are also working here.
I think it does when you don't see the same level of rage when its exactly the same thing. Its called polorization. If you accepted it the first time you've all ready approved it universally.
I think if you are a partisan you're always going to find differences in the two scenarios which are meaningful enough to explain to yourself and others why your outrage (or lack of it) is warranted.
And here's the thing, I'm sure there are meaningful differences. But then again there's also loads of similarities. A similar thing on the geopolitical stage is the status of Kosovo. The moment it was accepted as a separate entity you opened a floodgate. President of Croatia had a very nice clip about it a while ago, basically accepting both things to be true at once: Kosovo is a state that we need to accept but we also need to admit it was illegally taken from Serbia. This sort of duality (what Nader called being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, although for a completely different situation, I forget what the topic was) is very rare.
On HN i made the mistake of defending, for lack of a better word, a certain tech oligarch who shall not be named where I eventually made a similar point to yours and got downvoted to oblivion.
I could understand the framing being: all censorship is bad (even though I suppose this view would be called childish by some). I could also understand the framing that there is too much concentration of power in the hands of these corporations (and then the inevitable cries to break them up or nationalize them). But, for example, just pointing out that nobody was against these same practices when they were aimed at the other end of the political spectrum (SF billionaires were the darlings of the Democrat and not Republican establishment) causes such outrage from what I would guess are generally well meaning and intelligent people, that it boggles the mind.
It really seems to be something in our species that turns us into crusaders for certain topics. I can very well imagine that this same biological(?) impulses, where you are incredibly convinced in your own morality, must have led to the spread of early christianity (and then to the same or even larger degree, Islam). And it has to come from a place of conviction because otherwise u cant explain the zeal. And anybody who isn't as convinced (maybe partially agreeing) gets dealt with viciously. I'm making Tom Hollands point (in a very erratic manner), that what we consider modern universalism (aka wokeness) is a natural continuation of christianity. I would just go further and say that I think there is something in us all (to varying degrees) that we want to spread a certain gospel of what it is to be a moral person. And if someone disagrees they are not moral.
It is clear that we do not see all communication. Governments become increasingly deceitful and secretive - the US government is the best example, but the same applies to other governments (just look at the garbage produced by the russian government, they almost outperform the current US administration with total crap, like what Lavrov recently babbled about - what pile of nonsense). And companies - they are alo secretive. So which conspiracy exactly is meant here? It's not that I disagree with your prior statement, but I want to know which conspiracy you assume to be here to exist, or to NOT exist. Because what you wrote is very unspecific - you insinuate that there may not be a conspiracy. How do you conclude that?
I concur with Levitz's statement too, with regards to conspiracy or "inventing" one - so, which specific conspiracy was meant?
If those countries worried for real they would have built open platforms themselves. In reality they are making running any social platform next to impossible operate legaly.
Meta restored Lula's FB account hours after it got flagged for content that as posted on their page. That is a pretty weak basis for a conspiracy theory.
As the source article covers, they’ve been facing a number of complaints from human rights organizations that they are being insufficiently censorious regarding the Brazilian election, failing to swiftly take down some things which ethical standards and Brazilian law require. So that presumably influenced their policy. A lot of people seem to have an idea that Facebook’s election policy should quickly block all the bad ads with no risk of blocking any good ones, and that’s just not possible.
One paper that really hammers this point: Inherent Trade-Offs in Algorithmic Fairness [1]
The example they focus on is different but the general principles and takeaways are very powerful and applicable to all classification problems including content flagging.
They should be handled differently [than they are today]. They should not be handled differently [than any other persons]. Meta should be giving everyone careful review.
donating money to the president and their party is something nearly every national corporation does. Using their corporate power to do political favors is not. those are two very different things.
That's not a campaign donation, this is straight up a gift to show loyalty to the new guy, after he won the election. But that's not the only thing, for just one more example, look at Zuckerberg getting on Joe Rogan weeks after the election to praise "masculine energy", wearing a ridiculous haircut and necklace, just to pander to the Right.
Meta hired Dina Powell McCormick into a position directly under Zuckerberg after the election and appointed Dana White to their board of directors. Is that enough water?
Zuckerberg started pandering to the Trump admin mere months after he took office, publicizing "evidence" consisting of a few emails from Biden admin officials as proof of widespread government manipulation of tech platforms that Trump rightly put a stop to in the name of free speech.
At the time the story blew up on HN drawing lots of outrage from the self-styled free speech maximalists. Now, of course, there's comparative silence from that crowd after regular stories about the FCC routinely weaponizing licenses to enforce preferred speech, lawsuit threats against Wikipedia, coercion of universities to suppress specific political views, etc. But at the time it was a big thing and a political gift to the Trump admin's public image.
There will never be a time when I'm configuring my UI in a rendered page or on my desktop on Linux or BSD that I'm not thinking about the pre-CU UI and sounds of Star Wars Galaxies or mostly Japanese PSX / PS2 video games of a certain design style of the time.
I haven't used F-Droid since the age of Copperhead when I had an Android phone sitting around for testing purposes only. I never thought it would catch a wave like it has, but I also wasn't really thinking about geopolitical upheaval (not often or entirely seriously anyway) or tech companies angering (this much) everyone, but it is nice to see.
I never got around to trying the Copperhead successor in Graphene.
That's good, I guess, but hasn't Google already long given everyone including the author many reasons to both quit the company as an employee, and delete your Google account as a user?
Just as a user, deleting my Google account 10-11 years ago (don't even remember precisely when) was a great feeling that was received as "insane" by friends and acquaintances. While I think the author is a bit late in quitting (assuming he is genuine in his motives) given this is practically a trend right now, a lot of people should more often say "no" to things that are as ubiquitous as Google.
I don't know if I would say this as much anymore except for Linux distributions steering away from Red Hat/IBM or Canonical attempts at replacing traditional methods, or the BSDs that aren't necessarily in agreement with more recent developments either.
I certainly would not feel I owned my system if I accepted the full suite of attempts by these companies to replace and subvert existing standards. I do feel I have control with non-systemd init and service management, and source based packaging.
Perhaps, but the BSD developers do not fully invite themselves into your home and network through use of their operating system. I do appreciate however that macOS is BSD somewhere under the hood and switched to zsh as default shell (even if it was supposedly only for licensing reasons, but I believe it's the correct decision practically or legally)
Although I am fairly well aware of the vendors of these full systems like SGI and Sun had with IRIX and Solaris, I'm often disappointed I never got to experience them as they were before my time. I've seen photographs of well preserved personal collections of their machines in users' homes, and they look wonderful in a way you look at a specific kind of classic car (that surely has odd quirks) and there's a resonance making you feel and know it will drive and handle joyfully.
I've been amazed in the past looking at the Wikipedia article on Bill Joy, and all I have to say right now as a UNIX philosophy leaning Linux and BSD user is: thank you for NFS.
Every single time one of these new "minimal", "dumb", "lightweight" phones comes up today it's just marketing wrapped around a kneecapped Android device. I am in the market for something simpler that does nothing more or little else than play local media/audio, read common document/text formats, ordinary SMS, current standard of telephony, and a different OS than Android. I have not seen anything like this yet.
The problem is everyone has a different list of deal breakers that they need in a "dumb" device. It starts off simple, such as calls and texts, but some people want to play music, or get directions from maps, or maybe contact relatives with Whatsapp... Eventually you just end up with a smart phone.
Ideally everyone would just have the discipline to just keep what they need on their phone without trying to fix their problem with an overpriced gimmick that they will give up on after a few months.
Those people don’t actually want a dumb phone. They just don’t want to be spied on. That’s not actually that complicated it just makes other people less rich.
Yes!
Also be in control of my phone, not having to "deactivate" bloat and garbage brought to me with every update and preinstalled trash I can only "deactivate" not uninstall.
I do want a smartphone - just not one that is in full control of corporations considering me not really a customer, but an asset for their main business - advertisement. Or well the alternative, a company that thinks I am too stupid to be in charge of my phone (and also introduces more and more advertisement).
That seems excessive. In many parts of the world, WhatsApp is the default app for texting people (ie the one you use to contact a plumber or a restaurant) and not having it means the phone fails at its most basic requirements.
People tell me this all the time. Yet I've never had a WhatsApp account and I do just fine.
The only problems I've had were a single barber that accepts reservations over WhatsApp exclusively - so I go to the barber two shops over and don't need a reservation. And some women from dating apps refuse to talk on the phone before talking over WhatsApp. That's fine, there are plenty of fish in that sea.
> Every single time one of these new "minimal", "dumb", "lightweight" phones comes up today it's just marketing wrapped around a kneecapped Android device.
Except the Commodore Callback[1], which is based on Linux (SailfishOS). It's pretty minimal and should meet your requirements, in theory.
It was a 302 redirect to http://www.rim.com/careers/ around 2008-2010, according to the Wayback Machine. It could have been around for longer unarchived, of course.
There are an odd much smaller collection new new-gTLD-like earlier ones that were introduced a long time before the recent ones, it's a real odd historical artifact of ICANN.
In Australia it's pretty great: my driver's license can be provided by an app on my phone and legally must be accepted if it is. So between that and NFC payment support, a phone is the only thing I need to remember to operate outside the house.
It's pretty great as long as it doesn't evolve into them no longer printing the cards and requiring use of their app, consequently on one of their approved OSes.
I mean yes but that is a case of the slippery slope fallacy: the existence of a future possible decision does not affect whether a current decision is a good one.
If they try to move in that direction, we can protest it then. Denying ourselves a useful capability now doesn't stop it from happening anyway, nor make it more likely.
I personally live in a country with a large religious population that rejects the smartphone, so thankfully I personally have not encountered a situation where needing a smartphone is vital. However we've seen many people right here on HN mention how some specific vital service - often government or banking - does require a smartphone.
In my HN Threads feed, the very next item is another HN user mentioning how they have difficulty paying for parking spaces without a smart phone, from this very page. Search "and sadly accept the cost of our principles" on this page to find it.
But I have no interest in winning internet arguments. You win, the cookie isn't worth it to me.
We don't, and sadly accept the cost of our principles. What I generally do, is to put on the blinken lights, and try to hurry up. Up to about 20 minutes or so, it generally works alright.
Pinephone is close to useless. Fairphone 5 I think is as good as it gets if you want to avoid android. It is annoying though that fairphone 6 is not working with linux.
I do too, but I think we're too deep into the duopoly of Android and iPhone now for anything else to succeed. I need 2FA apps, I need my banking app so that I can 2FA the desktop browser banking. I want Audible or some other audiobook option.
I'd love to go back and get a Blackberry, the pre-QNX one, but I think Android is the least-bad option here. We need certain apps, and Android is the only way we'll get them.
I think the iPhone mini sold 5-10 million units per year. I don't view that as a flop, and I don't think it merits sarcasm around how "many" people wanted it.
If small phones were a widely popular thing then there would be a company making them successfully or it would’ve been greater than 5% of iPhone sales. An individual company with zero brand power or presence wouldn’t have any decent sales. This is not even considering that the value proposition would be way worse than just buying a slightly bigger and significantly better phone with more R&D put behind it.
The reality is 90% or more of people don’t care about that or even think about it, this sentiment only exists in online tech enthusiast spaces. If you’re in HN you’re as non-representative of the average consumer as one can get.
I think you should always include the iPhone SE in those numbers. It had similar dimensions, was cheaper and even more minimal. If it weren't for the SE, I would have picked a Mini right away.
I think there's something to be said about not carrying a phone-like device into stores, since the whole "cameras everywhere" situation is feeling more dystopian than it already did. I even carried paper lists to not further contribute to that.
reply