I usually like to stay extension-free, but this looks pretty cool. I might try it out next time I’m on my PC. Something new.

You know no details about their relationship at all.

Perhaps she was being truly awful to him, and that prompted him to leave. We don’t know.

But fuck off with that implication that women are weak and pathetic, needing a man around to protect them. If someone is being awful, you can leave. Doesn’t matter what they’ve got between their legs.

If a woman I was with was being awful to me in a bar, of course I’d leave. She’s an adult. She can deal with the consequences of her own actions, and she can look after herself. I’m not above her, needing to be her guardian figure, just because I have a cock and she doesn’t. What a 1950s attitude.

continued Roddenberry’s thing about putting women in skimpy outfits

No. Female officers wearing short dresses was requested by the women on set at the time, not by Roddenberry.

Initially men and women were going to wear the same uniforms, which was criticised by feminists.

Remember that at this time, women were rebelling against having to cover up their bodies for modesty sake. It was at around the time of “free the nipple” and women burning their bras. Short skirts and dresses were popular at the time because it’s what women wanted to wear.

Women dressing “skimpy” on TOS was an act of female empowerment. Youre looking at this through a prudish 2024 lense and assuming seeing womens legs is down to sexism.

You still are the paying customer for Windows. Windows costs money.

Microsoft are just double-dipping.

“If you’re not paying, you’re the product” doesn’t make sense because FOSS exists, and in the proprietary world now, even if you pay you’re still the product.

Yes, there are ways to install newer versions in a way that shouldn’t cause any issues (as opposed to adding a bunch of unstable repos): Flatpak.

IMO Flatpak has made Debian a lot more usable. You get the stability of the Debian base system but can have newer apps if you want to, without unnecessarily complicating matters with PPA repositories that seemingly always fuck up.

Jesus Christ. The amount of absolute bellends in the world never ceases to confound me.

Dinnae light that candle

You can be brilliant in some ways while being useless or a POS in other ways.

Steve Jobs was an excellent salesman and marketer. He was an awful father and thought that a fruit-only diet would cure pancreatic cancer. Then, when he realised his curable cancer became incurable because of inaction, he jumped the organ donor queue (because apparently in the US money lets you do that), which not only didn’t help him, but also likely killed someone who needed it.

Richard Stallman is an excellent steward of open source software and user freedom in software, and he has been very prescient of the shit that would ultimately come from proprietary software. But he is also a major creep to women and a staunch defender of paedophilia and bestiality.

Someone I knew, before she passed away, was enormously selfless. Gave everything she had to others, fostered a lot of children who all grew up to be great people. Lived with almost no money because she preferred to spend it helping other people, was a big pusher of LGBT rights in the 80s and 90s, helped run a centre that helped HIV victims, never spoke up about the good she was doing because she preferred to keep it a secret… was (astounding to me) enormously racist.

People are complicated.

Indeed.

I just doubt his ability to actually bring it to market in any reasonable capacity anytime soon.

How bad is your digestive system

It’s not abusing your market position to not open source your own software. If I make a game, I don’t have to let people have the source code. How don’t you understand this?

I’ve explained many times why Google’s options are abusive of their market position and Apple’s aren’t. You’re just unable to understand, it’s like talking to a brick wall.

So the complaint here is that Apple’s AI summary… Accurately and succinctly summarised his messages, as he requested?

They are, and I’ve already explained how they are, several times.

And you were wrong.

They have no choice because Apple does not make iOS/Apple Store available to anyone else…

People and companies are not compelled to open source their software. Apple doesn’t have to open source iOS or offer it on other devices if they don’t want to. Same goes for Sony/Xbox/Nintendo.

If I code a game, it’s not illegal for me to keep the source code to myself.

If Google did what Apple did (or did not in this case), those other OEMs would have zero choices and wouldn’t even exist…

No, if Google had done what Apple did, nobody would’ve flocked to Android in the first place, and we’d have more competition. Do you think there were no phone makers before Android or something?

It’s incredible how you still don’t get it despite me very clearly explaining it multiple times.

Apple. Is. Not. Imposing. Terms. On. Phonemakers.

Google is. Because their dominant market position allows them to.

If Google did this only for their own Pixel line, it would be fine.

I really don’t know how you aren’t grasping this.

Apple isn’t forcing anybody to do anything, because they make their own device. (iPhones are made by Apple).

Google is forcing OEMs to do all sorts of things, because they have no choice but to use Android/the play store. (Other phones, e.g. Samsung’s Galaxy S series, aren’t made by Google).

Do you understand? I’m not sure I can make this any more simple. What’s going on in your head that’s not letting you understand this?

Repeating my own comment back to me in a way that doesn’t even make sense doesn’t make you witty, it makes you look like someone who doesn’t know how to interract with people like an adult.

You never addressed my comment at all. Apple isn’t abusing their dominant market position by putting what they want on their own phones.

Google is abusing their market position by forcing other OEMs to do what Google wants, knowing they have no other choice.

Do you understand now?

If you want Apple to be punished, write some new laws, because they aren’t breaking the one Google is.

Come on, man, my comment isn’t that long. Just read it.

Perhaps they mean allowing android OEMs to ship with the play store without having to agree to all the other Google requirements.

It’s because Google is using their market dominance to essentially force OEMs to do what Google wants them to do.

You can’t have a successful Android device without the Play store, or access to any Google apps. Shit, for lots of apps, they will be straight up broken without Play Services installed, or notifications won’t work.

The market reality is that you have to have the play store. Google knows this, so they attach all kinds of extra requirements on OEMs to push Google services and tracking.

Apple doesn’t do this. Yes, Apple’s system is more locked down than Google’s (by far), but Apple is not using their market position to force anything on anybody or any OEM. Google is. Apple has not forced Samsung, OnePlus, Motorola, Sony, etc to do anything. They are only doing things of their own accord, on their own devices.

What Apple is doing is the same as what the games consoles do. You buy a Sony console, it has Sony software, Sony’s storefront, Sony-sanctioned games. It’s an ecosystem they’re putting on their own product, as opposed to Google strong-arming other companies into pushing Google’s ecosystem, because Google knows they have no realistic alternative. That’s why one is abuse of market dominance and the other isn’t.

And it can’t replace what we have today if it doesn’t exist. Therefore it existing is a good thing and a positive move for privacy.

That’s the kind of data companies like Meta and Google (I’m sure among others I don’t know) track and use to sell ads today . That is their entire business model. And they will not stop it of their own free will for an alternative that gives them less useful data than they had before.

No shit.

Mozilla’s model does nothing for privacy unless legislation forces companies to quit the current more invasive kind of tracking. But if it did that, we would have won and wouldn’t need Mozilla’s model either.

Yes, as I have already stated, Mozilla should be pushing governments to enforce privacy respecting and models.

They have made a privacy respecting option, and you are angry with them because others are still hoovering up your data. It’s a dumb take.

It is an alternative, and if it became more common in the industry it would be one of the best things to happen for user privacy in decades.