FriendOfDeSoto

But that's not all phones, is it. If you buy your phone directly from Google, you made a mistake. Like buying one from Apple. If Google want to continue to claim Android is open source, they have to allow for devices that forego any of this crap and boot vanilla non-Google-Services Android. And if you're privacy oriented enough, you will give up on apps that are not.

And given enough time somebody is going to work out how you fool a modified system into booting. The problem is legal. Depending on where you are circumventing any digital locks can mean jail time at worst. We have to address the legal situation at the same time.

I think with PCs it will be harder to lock them down and not disgruntle consumers too much in the process. I'm also hopeful that over time right to repair will be the standard, so they have to allow for third party repair. So all these restrictions like chipped components and software only from our store will be phased out by incremental legislation. The EU is not perfect but it's on this path. Even in the US people are thinking antitrust more often now. There is hope, however small.

You can run whatever you like in your Android phones. Jailbreaking iPhones is also possible. All these devices are just computers that can run anything within their hardware specs. Hacking some of these things may be against the Ts and Cs or even illegal. But technically possible. The restrictions are mote political, not technical.

Chromebooks are not the way to the future. They fill a niche in education for cheap hardware in connection with limited capabilities. They are not technical limitations, they are designed to limit users in what damage they can do. AFAIK you could technically wipe a chromebook and put Linux on it. It may violate the Ts and Cs and we're right back at political. Google would like to develop future customers at an early age. They don't care about the education so much as about their bottom line.

Sci-fi is delightfully circumspect on how an intergalactic empire would work. Maybe Herbert's Dune universe is clearest and he just took us back to the middle ages with sandworms and drugs, fiefdoms and nobility.

I think whatever area shares the same government is a country. It doesn't have to be contiguous or on the same body floating through space. It could be the size of the Vatican or half the universe.

I suspect the definition of the word will change once (if) we make it to the stars. We have gone from nomadic life to loosely defined borders to kingdoms to empires to multinational and intranational federations of sort. These terms may no longer be fit for purpose when we colonize Mars etc. And maybe that's why you struggle to comprehend how it would all work behind the scenes. We don't know for sure, sci-fi authors don't know (or don't want to be too specific and limit themselves in what stories they could tell in the future).

Like the river finds the sea, people will find a way around it. Satellite connections, just as an idea.

Anything a chip does can be backwards engineered to fool it. People will break your proposed surveillance chip eventually.

Most of these companies are maybe US-owned to varying degrees but they don't produce everything in the US. Also, they would put a very high price on these government mandated chips for two reasons: 1) government has deep pockets and 2) it would keep them away from very profitable so-called AI biz opportunities.

The pandy has shown us that with a few disruptions in the supply chain, any system that requires a cryptographic chip check to function can be sent to hell in a handbasket. I forgot if it was HP or Canon or some printer company had to teach its customers to bypass, i.e. hack their own cryptogtaphic chip checks because they couldn't get more chips and otherwise the printers wouldn't print. A few disruptions could also affect the censorship chip supply chain.

The great firewall of China has also shown how creative people get to get their message across. If it's not just human censors but also so-called AI censors it will just take creativity to a new level. Necessity is the mother of invention.

So there are some reasons why you might be worrying too much. I think another one is much broader. The majority of Americans did not vote for the current president. If he started censoring the internet now there would be Civil War II - Now It's Digital. The reason why Russia or North Korea can censor their people much easier is because they have never had or only on paper a brief period of liberty and rule of law. It will be much harder to control the US population. There isn't just the one media outlet, the one ISP, the one judiciary to dominate. It's splintered. And populated by feisty people, some of them armed. You couldn't pull off what you suggested without much more support for 47. And he seems to be losing it more than gaining these days.

Of course, I didn't think far enough. Thanks for setting that straight.

I think there is data on it. Back in school I remember looking at the population pyramid. It's a visualization of the number of men and women (x-axis, going both left and right) per birthyear (y-axis). In ye olden days, that formed a triangle. Many babies at the bottom, fewer olds at the top. You could tell a lot from the shape this took. You'd get dents on the male side that will correspond with armed conflicts, like the world wars. And then in the 1960s the pyramid with war chips in it massively narrows. At least in countries where the pill became readily available. It turned the pyramid into a tree with a big head at the top and a wide but thinner stem growing under it. I suspect now 80 years later we're at a much narrower elongated triangle shape again. So you can probably count the shift in numbers there and put a number on "prevented accidents." But you would have to account for other factors as well, improvements in medicine, vaccinations, etc.

Were all births accidental? That's a question you could only ask in hindsight. Humans have always looked for ways you prevent conception because we like to party but without reliable success. It's only in the second half of the last century that we have come up with measures that the Catholic church really doesn't approve of. Before that, children weren't really planned in today's sense. They just happened. They were expected to happen. And with most women being relegated to raising them and running the household, there wasn't much else they could do. The concept that a wife could be raped by her husband is sadly fairly new. The patriarchy was strong. Abortion was a gamble and many women died from bad jobs of them. Most of the time, if she got pregnant, the decision was made, end of story. If you weren't married yet, shotgun wedding. That's how it went until we developed contraception that actually works. I wouldn't call any kids before that accidental.

Sure, you could remain abstinent. But we like to party.

Did he really do them though? The reason why this is within the scope of belief is the fact that there's no conclusive evidence that removes reasonable doubt by contemporary standards.

Let's say it's all exactly as it says in the four different versions that are somehow considered canon and none of it is a millennia old game of telephone: did he choose to do them? Did his dad force him? Could he maybe not have had free will in this regard? Do we know about all the miracles? Maybe there were more! Would it be fair for us today to judge him based on incomplete records?

I would say that's technically not a bad joke. It just doesn't come across well given the context of this thread.

You should maybe indicate if you're critical of this exploitation or in favor. If it's the latter it would be easier for the mods. And if it's the former you would lessen the inherent yuckiness people feel when reading this.

If you enter into starting a family, adding kids through whatever means, and you think this should not alter the relationship, you have another think coming. Kids are hard work. First your focus is to keep them alive and out of trouble. And over time this gradually shifts towards them not becoming a-holes. This takes energy and time, a lot of it. And that's the most common reason why some couples have much less bedroom fun. They're exhausted. They're stressed. People behave differently when they're exhausted and stressed. Raising kids is a marathon, not a sprint. Ideally, it's a series of never ending gut wrenching crises until they move out. And truth is it doesn't even end there. Some relationships handle this better, some don't. None stay the same. If you think that your current childless relationship is any indication of how this would work with children, and you measure it by loving attention and how much sex you're having you're looking at the sky to measure the sea level. Get your head out of the clouds. You have to look at how you handle problems under pressure together. How you can support each other and not look at it as transactional. If that works, you stand a chance of a less bumpy transition into a functional family life.

Of course, every relationship is different. There are many other factors that will play a part and make shit even more complicated. I'm fairly confident though that I'm more right than wrong here with my generalizations.

You couldn't survive such a radical personality change? Yours changed too. You will probably not win any argument on the assumption that your partner changed into a version is their folks while you stayed the exact same. You're just the frog in the pot who didn't notice it got hotter.

I'm a still married father of two.

It would also make more sense to divide the day into something decimal but some base twelvers showed up first. It would also make more sense to stop using measurement systems where 12 hooplas equal 1 boink. The alphabet is just another thing like that. It's been stolen and rewritten and now we are stuck with it. You can write an alternative sound map to help new learners. But the 26 letter order is here to stay.

When you're using lemmy or mastodon, you don't have to use the website. You can use an app that goes from your fingers to the server without needing a browser and a website to exchange the information.

So most if not all the instances of the fediverse are also a website if you need to use it. But not every website is an instance of the fediverse.