468 karma · joined June 18, 2020
Are you sure that's not intended?
"Not enough migrants arriving to keep pay down - [Irish] Central Bank" - https://www.independent.ie/business/jobs/not-enough-migrants...
And since approval committees are drawn from the same pool as researchers themselves, such politically unfavorable research is less likely to be proposed in the first place, so the 95% -> 50% drop, if anything, underestimates the bias.
In other words, overwhelmingly, they simply won't do research that they think could hurt their politics.
I wouldn't call being given the master key to my own computer "surprising".
That's exactly what happened in Hong Kong: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/technology/apple-hong-kon...
But it could never happen here...
(As someone pointed out, this does more than just prevent apps from running - it also leaks which apps you use and how often. Someone could ask Apple exactly when you started Tor browser, for example)
Only if you interpret "freedom" as "freedom for apps" instead of "freedom for the user". None of what you said precludes the user (I won't say "owner") being able to override Apple, or take Apple's place in deciding what their device may do.
In your mind, is a platform only "secure" when ultimate control is with the manufacturer, and not the user?
How much more "secure" were Apple's users in Hong Kong, after Apple decided to disable the app they were using to track the police?
And consumers who want to limit themselves to the safety of Apple's app store are free to do so. But Apple goes a step beyond this, and prevents consumers who don't want to be locked-in this way, from using "unauthorized" stores or apps.
It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom.
When a left-leaning institution publishes findings that broadly align with the left, do you also dismiss them?
Anger could be due to:
1) Kill competition by offering product at a loss.
2) Once competition is dead and people are invested in the product and ecosystem, start charging.
And you're right, the links aren't exclusively about marriage. So if "married" was erased from the original claim, you'd agree with it?
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e3d/640709c889472858054c8f...
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/are-children-raised-with-...
Do you think even free speech purists can see the danger in allowing too much influence concentrated in too few hands?
Though that never stops you from proclaiming what you'd want the studies to say as undisputed fact. It only becomes "complicated" when the studies say the wrong thing.
If only there was some kind of study linking vitamin [1] and protein intake [2] to health [3]...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin#Deficient_intake
[2] https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food...
[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/high-intake-of-vit...
Or is it none of those things, and Apple fights hard against users having any control whatsoever over their devices?
Did Apple know better which apps their users in Hong Kong should be allowed to run? https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/apple-removes-police-trackin...
What does it tell you about Apple, when it insists on remaining the absolute arbiter of what their users may run, even after it was forced to use that power to betray its users to authoritarian governments? That these are the kind of practices, the kind of company, that you should be promoting?
If not, then why is doing the same, but on a computer, remotely reasonable?
I addressed your point directly. You claimed content might not be available otherwise (and that this is the reason consumers want DRM), I gave examples that showed that to be obviously false. And DRM is much more than just not banned - it's illegal to circumvent, thanks to DMCA.
> And if you don't like it, don't subscribe.
I don't. But you're still not happy - I guess you'd also like me to shut up about how bad DRM is for consumers, and allow you to spread your false claims how Netflix wouldn't exist without it, unchallenged?
> Are you against companies being able to choose if to use DRM or not? Do you want to ban DRM? What about encryption, do you want to ban that too?
So you agree that DRM is bad for consumers and society, you're just not sure how to fix it? Because that is the only reason you'd want to skip directly to arguing what should be done about it... unless you were hoping to make it seem like DRM is good by proposing some overreaching "solution", and make it look bad by association with an encryption ban. But that would be an incredibly dishonest and slimy way of arguing, so I'm sure that's not what you were going for!
For the record, no, I don't want to ban encryption. But if DRM continues to infringe upon people's rights (such as fair use, or even regular property rights, like when Amazon remotely deleted an e-book, or Sony disabled OtherOS on PS3, or HP disabled "unauthorized" ink with an update to already sold printers), a DRM ban could be warranted. Many types of contracts are already banned, but you think consumers should just bow their heads and take it while corporations lock away their rights behind DRM?
Do you believe the only choice consumers should have is whether to buy a product or not? They shouldn't advocate for consumer-protection legislation? They shouldn't even complain about anti-consumer practices, judging by how much my complaints bother you?
Like how they stopped showing movies on TV once VCRs entered the market, or stopped playing music on the radio once home taping killed it. If only we had had DRM on radios and TVs back then, perhaps there would still be some entertainment industry left.
When I point out consumers are harmed by this, that's "interference".
Is this a parody, or do you truly think DRM is good?
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/nationaltrends
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...