Internet Must Have Security, Humanity, Apple CEO Tells China
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
This is what Google has done and they are not the first. Be very suspicious of utopianism, those who talk of good and evil and those who talk airily about changing the world.
The world changes by millions of micro actions and real sustained sacrifice by thousands maybe millions of people for instance like what individuals like Stallman and Linus have done in open source, and not sloganeering and sellouts.
Whilst it might be laudable for a CEO to stand up for principle if the costs outweight the rewards they'll find themselves out of a job. Especially so if a competitor proves that selling principles for profit yields dividends for shareholders.
That's one big reason behind why a few tech companies tried hard to avoid going public. I doubt Tim Cook enjoyed his dinners with Carl Icahn but it's damn hard to thumb your nose at shareholders and avoid a lucrative opportunity based on principle alone. Steve Jobs might have had enough clout to do such a thing (although I'd be surprised if he would have) but Tim Cook and Sundar Pinchai have no such tenure.
Tim Cook is so busy chasing money, he has lost his principles. I can't blame him for trying to increase Apple's revenue, but I can dislike what he is promoting intensely.
China will change Google and Apple, rather than the other way around.
This proclamation by Tim is nothing but a weightless PR stunt at best.
China is much more valuable to Apple for its consumers than its final assembly powress.
0. https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/where-are-apple-pro...
These have long been very well known, and in fact those are the problems that democracy is designed to solve: How can humans govern themselves? IIRC, at the dawn of the U.S., it was questioned whether self-governance was possible or whether we needed a king; the question is well answered by now.
Democracy takes large groups of flawed humans, the only kind available, and forms them into groups that are more free, more prosperous, more safe, more creative than anything seen in human history. There are about 10,000 years of human history, and the current entire non-democratic world to look at for comparison. All of the most free, prosperous, safe, etc. nations are democracies; the correlation is almost perfect. Even the most free, prosperous regions in China are democratic, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
But on a philosophical level, why is a dictator who must be a flawed human - we have no other option - any better than an elected President or Prime Minister who is flawed, or superior to the flawed voters? And how is that dictator selected, without democracy? What better process is there? Why should I submit to their claim of authority - who are they to tell me what to do?
Churchill said, reputedly, 'democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for all the others'. (Sorry I don't have time to find or verify the quote.)
It is inherently bad.
Unfortunately this is a political trend in the U.S. now. The current President's administration has changed the generations-long U.S. policy of supporting democracy (self-determination) and freedom for people around the world, as a universal inalienable right, and arguably to some extent, for people in the U.S. who are not political supporters. (I'm trying to talk about the general trend, not the President; the fact that he had enough support to be elected and to enact these policies is evidence for how popular this trend is).
one thing is PKI. Start with taking your key to the passport office and get it signed, from there most things like government services call into place, and most apps and walled gardens just whither.
the second part seems like a bill of rights, the convincing prosecutions of criminal