Re: So
"Use Firefox for YouTube, DuckDuckGo for search, and you have a low slurp, ad free experience."
That's only helping for your web browsing. Google still slurps everything else.
5648 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Feb 2015
Speaking for me, personally, this phone doesn't even come close to being something that I'd want. No SD card slot and completely inadequate storage, no user-replaceable battery, and -- although I cheer that the headphone jack exists, it sound like they used a terrible DAC to drive it. None of the features they're crowing about are things that I find compelling.
This is a nonstarter.
"Microsoft under Satya is not definitely not Microsoft under Ballmer"
I'm not trying to be difficult here, but people say this a lot and I honestly don't understand why. Microsoft doesn't really seem much different now than it was before in terms of business practices. What am I missing?
"It's open source developers who made GitHub "the only repository you shall use""
I never got that memo. I did use GitHub until Microsoft bought it, but it was never the only (or even the main) repository I used. That's why leaving it was painless for me.
Maybe.
We're entering the election season, and the Senate is in play in terms of which party will control it. Robocalls are an issue that directly affects every voter, and is easy for them to understand. The Republicans may push for legislation on this just so that the Democrats can't make hay about it in their election campaigns.
""If this decision is adopted, I strongly encourage carriers to begin providing these services by default – for free – to their current and future customers."
So, the FCC is not requiring telecoms to offer this at all, whether or free or otherwise. He's merely "encouraging" it. It sounds like just another variation on the same refrain we've been hearing all along.
This doesn't seem like it would change much, if anything. It's basically telling the telecoms "you can make less money if you want to".
I understand what you're saying and yes, if I can't get adequate quality from a local producer, then I don't buy from that producer (cost is a different issue).
That said...
"not rely on patriotism."
Buying as local as possible is not a matter of patriotism, it's a matter of economics and your own self-interest. Buying things that are produced as local to you as possible improves the economy near you. That directly benefits you in a material way.
It also encourages new products to be manufactured in your area where they weren't before. If companies see that there is a market, they will address that market.
We all affect and are affected by the economic behavior of our neighbors, and the closer those neighbors are to us, the greater that effect.
"It is targeting them because it believes China is breaking the rules themselves"
Which excuses nothing. If the US really believes that China is violating WTO rules, then there is an existing mechanism to handle that -- which is why I'm severely skeptical about that being the reason.
But I agree that the current administration probably doesn't care about breaking WTO rules. It doesn't appear to care about the rule of law when that's inconvenient for them or won't result in the outcome they want.
"and the reason for that is that most people go fr the cheaper option rather than spend more for a local product."
Perhaps, but at this point, that's neither here nor there. Whatever the reason that some things aren't produced locally, if they aren't produced locally, then you can't buy them locally no matter how much you may want to, or how much you're willing to pay.
"It gets even stupider with the twits who go to Ali Express, Amazon etc rather than using local firms (from a Kiwi perspective)."
For everything I buy, I buy from the most local producer that I can. But there is a wide swath of things that there are no local producers at all for.
"On both occasions Chinese government officials screwed with us."
Then why continue to do business with China at all?
This is what I don't get about the complaints about China's business practices. Yes, they're generally valid -- but the solution is to not do business with them. A war by the government to force them to do business differently strikes me as unnecessary and arguably immoral.
"interest-bearing bank account, charitable contributions, and a car would be normal, and possibly a mortgage."
Interest-bearing bank accounts are less common than ones that don't pay interest, most people can't afford to make charitable donation in amounts that would really matter to their tax bill, and most people rent, so they don't have a mortgage.
Car loans are a bit more common, but even then, they usually aren't that large -- most car loans are for relatively inexpensive used cars.
"In the USA citizens who wish to do their legal and moral duty and pay money to their government have to use a third party commercial company to do so."
Not exactly. You can file at no charge by filling out and mailing in the physical forms. If you want to do it electronically, however, then you're thrown to the wolves.
I'm usually a huge fan of space exploration, and returning to the moon is an inherently exciting thing.
For some reason, though, I'm not excited at all by this. I can't think of a rational reason, really. Maybe it's because it really seems to me like everything is falling apart here on Earth, and I'm more concerned with putting our resources into addressing that.
"It is not, and anything, even Trump (SO not a fan) that makes China less dominant is good, because its goals and the goals of any sane capitalist or socialist-capitalist are at odds."
(This is a thought inspired by your comment. I am not trying to imply that you are one of the people I'm talking about in this comment.)
I am a bit amused that many of the people who are inclined to say that the free market is the solution for pretty much everything are the same people who are in favor of this trade war. I'd think that this is one of the cases where a free market could actually be a solution.
If China is mistreating companies doing business with them so egregiously, surely the solution would be for those companies to cease doing business with China. That they aren't entertaining that course of action tells me that the situation is not as dire as the administration portrays. Clearly, on the whole, US companies are making more of a profit by doing business with China than not.
Whether or not that's true depends on your use case. For many of the things Adobe software is used for, there isn't a good OSS alternative. However, for many other things Adobe software is used for, there really is.
Because there may not be a good OSS alternative for your use case doesn't mean that's true for everybody (maybe not even most).
"If you're still using ancient versions of Adobe then you're missing out on improvements"
I don't understand why people raise this argument. Anyone using an old version of software is well aware of this already and have decided that the "improvements" aren't enough to be worth upgrading.
(Scare quotes on "improvements" because often, particularly these days, they aren't actually improvements at all, just changes.)