People always complain on Lemmy about Telegram and point at alternatives that are theoretically better in terms of security and privacy.
Yet the security and privacy on Lemmy are good enough that you routinely see governments complaining about how they can't get at the info on Telegram like this story here, all while Telegram has a UI and experience that blows every competing messenger completely away.
I don't understand, how does that make money for Facebook and the rest of the domestic web companies that can then be funneled into unregulated SuperPACs for the politicians passing the laws?
I just read the linked article.
What's the lesson to take away?
The linked article makes very clear that style guides are common.
However, the specifics of this style guide also happen to follow pretty exactly how Israel likes things presented - there is no "Palestine", they didn't turn the Palestinians into "refugees", they didn't "slaughter" the 15000 children that they killed, with the opposite standard for the Palestinians.
That's unfortunate and hopefully you can get a raise or a better job but apparently unemployment is low overall and wage growth is outpacing inflation for most people.
It seems to me the most important element of this conversation is wage growth and unemployment versus inflation.
My understanding is those numbers being favorable are what make economists scratch their heads on why everyone feels so negatively and why the economists say the economy is doing great. The most convincing explanation I've seen that mirrors my own feelings is that wage growth feels like I've earned it through my own hard work but inflation feels like I'm being cheated, so even though overall people can buy more than before they don't feel good about it.
This article doesn't really address this big point at all.
Nah I wasn't being sarcastic.
As I understand it, in engineering these types of mobile space constrained devices you essentially have a "budget" of space. Every hardware feature you include generally eats into this budget and if you want things to be user accessible or repairable it eats into this budget majorly.
That budget has to come from somewhere, so you can pay it with things like reducing the size of your battery or reducing the size of your drivers which in turn represents a reduction in sound quality.
This article seems to omit the most important fact about headphones - how do they sound?
I love repairability and all, but it hardly matters if I don't want to use them in the first place because they traded off too much quality for repairability.
I'd rather have both and there's no reason we should settle for less.
Of course actual protection are more important.
But social signaling that LGBTQ+ is accepted by society and the government is important, too. And preventing bigots who overtly are anti-LGBTQ+ from winning on passing laws like this is also important.
The problem with applying existing laws is then you're under the regime of rule of law, and TikTok could escape by complying with the law like anybody else.
This is a xenophobic witchhunt, though, and that won't do.
That's not what I see at all.
Normally it goes more like instead of targeting TikTok specifically, we should pass a broad bill that targets all social media companies regardless of who owns them.
The point isn't generally that TikTok should be free or Facebook et al need to suppress but that we should treat all of their problematic behavior in the same way.