Let’s take android for example. There are legitimate security implementations like SELinux, full disk encryption but something like samsung’s knox is useless outside of enterprise use and kills OS level modifications
The only reason I haven’t rooted my phone is because of the Knox circuit. Rooting it trips the circuit, and it can’t be reset. Once the circuit is tripped, my bank won’t ever recognize my phone again, because it’s “insecure”.
Knox is used by Samsung own functions. Your bank app only does a root check. Which can easily be hidden with Magisk. If you trip Knox, you lose the Samsung exclusive security features baked into the OS. That’s it. Google Pay and USAA both complained about root access and refused to work with Magisk hiding off. With it on, they function as normal.
Integration into Knox requires enterprise device management and a custom app.
Huh. I’ll have to give it a try then. My prior phone, which had been rooted, wouldn’t work with my bank, and my bank claimed it was due to the Knox circuit.
When Knox is tripped it sets off the root check. Your banks misleading statement is due to their own confusion. Knox is no longer active so it can’t guarantee there is no root access. The OS basically says it’s untrusted/insecure due to lack of Knox and always says it’s rooted regardless of that actually being true. You can hide root for all apps that check. Do note that while you can return the functionality of third party apps, Samsung baked in apps can be hit or miss. It’s a game of cat and mouse. I speak from experience.
Additionally here are some other conversations about it:
The problem is that is used for illegal shit moslty. Be it the aformentioned or scams. And the problem is that money as a concept is centraliced and controled by whatever entity holds the most of whatever is based on, be it gold or whatever. It shouldnt but it is. And the whole " you better use reddit since you suck centraliced feet" thing, tho that i say to you grow up.
I’ll try to list things that aren’t in the typical internet echo chamber. Bring on the controversy. These are just my opinions.
50% of the shelf space at the grocery store is just different forms of corn syrup, sometimes with some trans fat mixed in, generationally twisting our idea of what food is in a race to the cheapest, most addictive product.
The only way it’s profitable for someone to knock on your door to sell ANYTHING is if they are obscenely inflating the price (think 100-600% markup)
Most supplements, especially expensive ones with TV ads
Dr Scholl’s and the goodfeet store
Genuine leather is just about the opposite of what you’d think
Bamboo fabric which is pretty much just a different way to say rayon but is pitched as a revolutionary and environmentally friendly cloth
Most bladeless fans just hide fan blades in the base
Many cleaning products don’t do better than diluted soap and water (even for sanitizing) especially the ones with TV ads
Financial planners who are actually financial product salespeople
Most single-purpose kitchen gadgets, especially as-seen-on-TV
The realtors racket: I just paid $30k for an internet posting and mediocre advice
Many personal hygiene products are just repackaging the same two or three active ingredients by the same one or two megacorporations
Essential oils (even ignoring mystical claims) big names charge an order of magnitude higher than they should
I believe he’s referring to “Genuine” leather as an industry term. Genuine leather is really low quality leather (but still comes from a cow). “Full grain” leather is what most people think of when talking about leather products.
The only thing worse than genuine is bonded, which is the plywood of leathers.
For some reason I was under the impression that “suede” was high quality. Is it just desirable because the collagen bundles are loose, and raise to make the surface fuzzy? Because it certainly isn’t durable, but my full grain backpack is.
Your list makes me realize just how far we peddle bullshit in our society. Virtually everything is lying to you, if only by omission or by being misleading. If you don’t know about cars, finance, food, technology, laws, housing, virtually anything, you will be taken advantage off, if only a little. Pretty much your whole list is spot-on, and it could go on for pages. Toothpaste? They’re lying about the quantity. You think your orange juice is healthy because it is very, very heavily suggested? Nope, it is old oranges with a lot of sugar. Anyway, I am not gonna type the entire comment I want to because it would become very rant-y.
I have bad signal so I can’t find the sources for you, but if you look up something like “diamonds artificial supply limiting” you should find it.
Basically the diamond industry has a stranglehold on the supply of natural diamonds (which are also notoriously mined under horrid conditions - i.e. “blood diamonds”) and they artifitially alter the supply/demand ratio by limiting what goes onto market to jack up the price. Naturally, diamonds are actually a very common gemstone, and they can be easily created in a lab. They’re just hyper-compressed carbon, after all, and carbon is abundant on earth. Rubys, sapphires, and the like are much naturally rarer, but don’t fetch as high a price because of the market manipulation around diamonds.
Don’t forget that there used to be literal assassins that would kill you if you tried to sell (as a retailer, obviously the resale by individuals was so small-time they didn’t care and hard to track) under the price you were told to sell it.
which are also notoriously mined under horrid conditions - i.e. “blood diamonds”
Not only are blood diamonds mined under bad conditions, they are mined in mines owned/controlled by insurgents and terrorist groups, and then the sale of these diamonds is used to fund the activities of these groups. Watchdog organizations are a lot more careful about blood diamonds these days than they were 20 years ago, but it’s still possible to accidentally get ahold of one. That’s why it’s so bad to buy one and it’s why people all over the world made a fuss about them back around 2000 - 2003, because buying one directly funds atrocities in central Africa. They’re usually sold cheaper than the monopolized diamonds too.
I agree that it’s a bit of a stretch. What I think they’re getting at is that individualism as it’s pushed by imperialist media creates the toxic environment that fosters the cultural traits that you’re referring to.
No only that, but it’s entirely possible to be an individual who can participate successfully in a collective. They’re not mutually exclusive or contradictory things. You can have goals and aspirations that focus exclusively on you without negatively affecting your contributions and interactions within a group. Life is nuanced, things aren’t as black and white as people often seem to think.
Once you realize you arent special you will be more humble and willing to help all the others that are just like you. Collectivism leads to a peaceful mind for you the individual.
I didn’t know any companies still did that. I pay $25/month for unlimited and it’s only gone down over the years. I started paying $45/month about 15 years ago. I know of some companies that are cheaper, but I haven’t had any issues, so I haven’t bothered to switch.
I would argue that feudalism is a lot more time tested than this garbage system that even in theory is so flawed that it regularly results in global economic crises. Feudalism on the other hand has been considerably more stable throughout the centuries and whether or not you are forced to serve a nobleman or a CEO is not a big difference. So, stop getting scammed and get back to the fields, peasant.
There is no stable alternative. There is always going to be class struggle. Materialist conditions and human rights must always be fought for and defended, else you’re gonna lose them.
There is a reason I reply to lemmygrad and hexbear people, and follow some of the communities. Sometimes I get interesting responses. Not your response, but sometimes.
No, but you didn’t need to engage in circle-jerking with your friends either. You are capable of more, and I look forward to reading your future contributions.
Me? I’m pretty open minded, while trying to apply critical thinking. Make a good argument, and I’ll digest it. You seem to be jumping to conclusions, which may hurt your cause.
Which communists? The USSR was infiltrated and the US then spent millions getting the bumbling mass of ethanol known as Yeltsin to win an election. They (the new capitalist government) even sieged the parliament building and sent tanks in Moscow to disperse the huge waves of protestors. It then lead to one of the worst humanitarian crisis in the modern age almost overnight.
And in China they are assuredly not capitalist, this becomes very clear once you read Deng Xiaoping. It’s Schroedinger’s China: when they do something bad they’re communists, and when they do something good (like lifting people out of poverty) they’re capitalists.
Cuba is still socialist, DPRK is still socialist, Vietnam is also reforming and opening up kinda like China did but a bit differently so still socialist
Are we really denying that the “Chinese Characteristics” of the PRC’s “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” is Capitalism? Btw, I think the good parts of China are the socialism bits.
capitalism is not bits and pieces here and there, it’s an entire mode of production with its own base and superstructure. In that sense China can’t be called capitalist. At best we could say it has “capitalist elements” but even then that’s a stretch when getting down into the details of what these elements actually are.
I mean, some (most? Idk) of the means of production are owned by the state (ostensibly a proxy for the people, I’d rather it was more direct but the government has consistently high approval so I’ll give it a pass) and those are clearly socialistic.
But there are certainly factories and what not owned by capitalists, and as that accounts for much of the production that goes on in China, and as these products are not destined to serve the public weal but rather to be sent abroad as bits and bobs to be sold and promptly thrown away as serves global capital, I really don’t get the desire to not call this capitalism.
China, to me, has a very clear mixed economy with elements of both socialism and capitalism.
But as I’ve argued, having elements of capitalism like commodity production (and the subsequent export of these commodities) does not make China capitalist by themselves, which is also the original point I was making, that China has not “turned” to capitalism* like OP might have implied.
Markets are not inherently capitalist, and these capitalist elements in China allow them to build their productive forces which are required to achieve socialism, they’re also the same commodities they build for the Belt and Road initiative, for example 😁
Capitalism can be summed up in many ways, and one of them is production for the sake of finding a market and making money. There is capital in China (in the marxist definition) and people can make money, but while these capitalist want to simply make more money, for the Chinese government the goal is to build up production and achieve socialism, hence why the superstructure of China vs. any country in the imperial core is different. In the first case (capitalism) we’ll just keep producing and creating markets infinitely, the “anarchy of production and socialisation of labour”, and in the second case they’re using some methods (with the consequences that come with it -> if you make a factory to produce stuff, you will have to find a market to buy that stuff so you can produce more stuff) as a stepping stone until they don’t need to any more.
Of course the superstructure is predicated on the base, and in China for example land is leased to businesses, but never sold, and the government can take back their property at any time, including whatever is on it. It’s fundamentally different to capitalism in the west.
The CPC controls all capital in the country. They are coordinating and intervening in the economy with the goal of building a socialist society. This is very different from the US and it’s client states. Capital is controlled by the bourgeois, with no obligations other than a gluttonous desire to accumulate.
Land enclosure. Screwed everything up for everyone stg
Microtransactions in video games. Remember when everyone got pissed over horse armor?
Trading Card Games. The whole trading card thing is about psychologically manipulating you into buying shit you don’t need, shoulda been stamped out as soon as cigarette companies started doing it, but if you think about it the ideal capitalist institution sells you literally nothing and selling people heavy paper with little pictures on it is damn close to that ideal.
Software. Should be free, isn’t. Blame Bill Gates.
Advertising. We all know about propaganda (even though we might disagree on what is and isn’t propaganda at times) and we all know it’s bad, but we literally let rich people propagandize us every single day in every single orifice.
I forgot not everyone knows what free software means. Free as in freedom not free as in gratis. The other one has good, even great reasons for existing as you’ve said people need to pay the bills. The first one does not.
This definition of “free” in the context of software is used only in specific circles. It’s confusing for everyone else and another word should be used.
You like your free Android kernel? How about your free browser. Or MF’er, do you like this lemmy shit that you’re using?!?!?!? What about all the network architecture so you don’t have to pay dozens of owners so that you can send a packet of data from your the open-source router software to the Linux server that is hosting your game.
Make no mistake Microsoft has been at war with open source since its business model requires people to pay for software. It would destroy open source if it could, it it probably will after it acquires enough enough market share.
MF is your choice of term to open discussion with someone on a topic you disagree on? Surely this is going to get your audience to be open to accept your views/input.
Edit: the discussion likely is about your use case of the term free
I’m assuming uralsolo is talking about free software as in, software which gives users the four freedoms.
I don’t think all software needs to be free, but in some ways, it’s no longer the issue of the day. In this day and age, a lot of what we’re using is no longer really software. We’re using services with client-side Javascript which is nominally free software (but not really). Most of the actual software is sitting behind a server. I see this as good and bad. It means users of less popular operating systems get access to the same services as users of popular operating systems so long as they have browsers, and the negatives are, well…I’m sure you don’t need my help to think of some.
It’s hard to make money with free software because everyone has the right to commercially exploit it. For this reason alone, I don’t think it’s necessary for all software to be free, but I’ll be there to celebrate the programs that are free.
Well, luggage is weight, and weight means more fuel burned. That’s not the scam.
The scam is advertising your plane ticket as $20 cheaper than the competition with luggage included, and then make you pay $30 for the luggage at checkout.
Traditionally, airlines would not charge for the first two pieces of checked luggage unless they exceeded weight limitation. But in February of 2008, United Airlines began charging $25 for the second checked bag. In July of that year, US Airways (LCC, Fortune 500) started charging $15 for the first checked bag
Add comment