Right, but there is an exception for carriers such as Twitter from being treated as publishers, responsible for the material they distribute and monetize from their website.
They aren’t treated like press, but they need to be.
63 karma · joined December 17, 2022
They aren’t treated like press, but they need to be.
You must be strongly opposed to right to repair, since repair shops are incompetent to even replace a battery in your view.
This is clearly not true when we’re discussing user replaceable batteries or the like. It’s a trade off, like most things in engineering.
There are many extra ways things can go wrong by making components such as batteries easy to replace. Poor contacts, oxidation, mechanical breakage, battery compartment doors popping off, ingress of dust and fluids, looser tolerances for the batteries etc.
Nobody discussing this in good faith can deny that these issues exist.
I don’t see how. The less reliable the device is, the more business they get. The more reliable the device is, the less you spend on repairs. Sure seems like opposing interests.
That should be up to the user to choose, as it is now.
The 79-pound repair kit is what Apple uses in its stores to avoid damaging phones that remain under warranty.
If people want to buy a bunch of cheap tools and risk damaging a delicate phone, they shouldn’t expect Apple’s help.
Why did you buy the ASUS phone if you don’t expect to get support for it?
See for example: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/04/apples-self-service-r...
Replaceable batteries will increase e-waste because there will be a lot more broken phones.
“The world’s digital town square” is a marketing slogan, and nothing more. If you instead accept that is simply just another way to sell eyeballs to advertisers, it’s easier to understand.
If we do need a digital town square, someone needs to build one. If it needs to have free speech protections, then the government needs to run it because they are the only ones who are restrained by the 2nd amendment.
How did you replicate dang? Was there enough history to train a large language model?
This isn’t accurate. The official narrative is that America’s way of life is under threat from China. This is just true. China would say the same thing, and that would be true too.
There is an assumption that most US citizens prefer America to China, also true. Can we assume that most Chinese nationals prefer China to America? Presumably.
Not very relevant to those for whom it doesn’t.
> and what happens most of the time.
This blithely elides the possibility that it’s not random who it happens for and who it doesn’t.
Have you considered that there are those for whom it happens most of the time, and those for whom it doesn’t.
Why do you assume this?
What a bizarre straw-man. Of course there is no individual. There are numerous democratically elected policymakers. What difference does that make?
> but it’s also unfair that the sun will eventually expand to swallow the earth, and that’s about as connected to SBF as Garner is.
Bizarre thinking again. Both men were arrested for non-violent crimes.
This paragraph doesn’t make any sense at all either.
The reason is that there is no meaning whatsoever to the concept of earned inequality, and therefore no meaning to the idea of ‘unearned’ inequality.
Having no CEO may reasonably affect expectations.