The biggest issue involves the logistics on the ground, and in places with extremely high food insecurity, there tends to be little to no legitimate government, and so getting anything done involves dealing with local gangs and warlords. It doesn’t matter how much money you have if every shipment you send will just be stolen at gunpoint and sold to fund the local thug’s next golden toilet. This is not a problem that can really be solved by throwing money at it.
Just for the sake of completeness, the actual history here is that Ancient Greek has the latter Phi Φ which, during the classical Greek era of around the 5th century BC, was pronounced as a particularly strong /p/ sound that produced a noticeable puff of air, as opposed to the letter Pi π which was a weaker /p/ sound. It’s the exact same story with Greek Theta θ vs Greek Tau Τ and Greek Chi Χ vs Greek Kappa Κ. This distinction is called ‘aspiration’.
The Romans obviously had quite a lot of contact with the Greeks and took a lot of Greek words into Latin. However, the issues is that Latin did not have these aspirated sounds natively, and so they didn’t have an simple way to transliterate those letters into the Latin alphabet. The clever solution they came up with was to add an <h> after the aspirated sounds to represent that characteristic puff of air. So, they could easily transcribe the distinction between πι and φι as “pi” and “phi”. Thus begins a long tradition of transcribing these Greek letters as ‘Ph’, ‘Th’ and ‘Ch’.
The awkward issue is that languages tend to change over time, and by the 4th century AD or so, the pronunciation of all the aspirated consonants had dramatically shifted, with Phi Φ becoming /f/, Theta θ becoming the English <th> sound, and Chi Χ becoming something like the <ch> of German or Scottish “Loch”. This was generally noticed by the rest of Europe, and other European languages tended to adopt these new pronunciations to the extent that their languages allowed, though some languages also changed the spelling (see French ‘phonétique’ vs Spanish ‘fonético’). Plenty of languages kept the original Latin transcription spellings though, and thus we have the kinda goofy situation of ‘ph’ being a regular spelling of the /f/ sound in English.
So, tl;dr: Ph was just a clever transcription of a unique Greek sound that basically was a P plus an H. Then the Greeks started pronouncing it as an F, and so did everyone else, but we kept the original spelling.
Your average pseudoscience obsessed health hobbyist is never going to notice that particular detail though.
The funny thing about Lemmygrad people is that you could tell me that this comment was an intentional caricature and it’d seem just as likely as it being genuine.
Violent revolution because of an operating system is genuinely one of the most terminally online ideas I think I’ve ever read in my life.
It’s not that genuine passion and altruism isn’t acknowledged; the entire open source software world is a testament to that.
You asked for an explanation as to why Free modern hardware hasn’t been developed yet. The simple answer is that passion and altruism has not yet been a strong enough incentive to motivate anyone to do it. He’s not accusing you of being lazy or hypocritical. The reason why you haven’t done it yet is the exact same reason why anyone else who could do it also hasn’t done it yet. It’s very very hard, and passion doesn’t pay the bills or feed you. Limited to a hobby, it’s simply more work than most people could ever hope to achieve in their spare time.
It’s more complicated than sheer greed.
The fact of the matter is that actually producing any modern technology takes a massive amount of work, and up til this point, no one has gathered enough motivation and free time to do it all for any modern hardware just out of pure altruism. There’s a reason why companies have to pay hundreds of engineers a huge amount of money to get anything developed; those people are not going to do this incredibly difficult work just for fun and moral satisfaction. It’s easy to point the finger at corporate greed for some things being locked down, and to be clear, there’s plenty of valid criticism to go around, but it has to be at least considered that most of this stuff would never have been developed in the first place if it wasn’t for those same companies. Your average person is not going to assemble a motherboard from parts and schematics.
Wouldn’t anyone just be curious to figure out how stuff works?
To this point, quite frankly, no. Average people simply do not care about this very much. They want to just turn on their magic internet box, get their work done, play their games, consume their media, and move on without any further fuss. The fact of the matter is that most people have no clue what a BIOS is, could not care less if it was proprietary or not, and have zero interest in learning about flashing them or why they would ever want to do that.
I’m speaking solely to the facts on the ground.
Regardless of anyone’s thoughts on the matter, Israel does hold all the guns here. Rights and privileges mean as much as the paper they’re printed on. In a perfect world, Israel and Palestine would exist side by side as peaceful partners, each with fully fledged institutions and militaries and all that jazz. But unless Israel is confident that a Palestinian military won’t have its destruction as its primary goal, it will not allow that to happen, no matter how much pontificating about rights and narratives and double standards anyone does. I’m not trying to talk about who’s “right”, whatever that even means. I’m talking about the actual situation and what will actually happen, regardless of anyone’s opinions on the matter.
When a country has such a consistent history, it’s rational to believe that they will continue annexing Palestinian lands
And an Israeli would say that Palestinians have a consistent history of attempting to murder Israeli civilians and so it is rational to never allow them to build up any military power, and thus the circus goes round. My point is that no amount of moral superiority means very much if you don’t have actual power to go along with it, and Palestinians simply do not. If the goal is actually to develop a real peace rather than avenge any sins of the past, both sides will have to give up on prior grievances and decide that they care more about the lives of their children than their own pride. It’s hard to imagine the situation being much worse than it already is (though I’m sure it’ll find a way)
it’s not impossible that Jordan, Egypt, and neighboring countries would gang up on Israel.
This has literally already happened. Israel beat them all in six days.
For sure, I’m not at all trying to portray Israel as blameless here, because they are not.
I think the blockade does have some basic level of merit, at least in principle (it can’t really be doubted that Hamas does import weapons and materials with Iranian backing), but it’s critical that those kinds of controls only go as far as they’re needed and no further. However, the Israeli government has never really cared about not going to far, so Palestinians have no real reason to trust that they’re being treated in good faith, violence comes to feel like the only real option, and onwards the mess rolls along.
Along with Palestinians needing to accept that Israel is going to exist in some capacity and that it will not accept any deal that doesn’t ensure its security, Israelis need to accept that if they don’t take every step towards keeping peaceful paths available and fruitful, then people will turn to violent ones. Israel can of course easily win a conflict of violence, but it doesn’t have to be this way
Maybe if it was the 1940s this would be a bit more accurate, but at this point, we’re a couple generations removed from the original mass displacements. Most Israelis today were born there.
Like I said, the way towards progress lies with both sides finding a way to get over historical grievances of who started what and who’s to blame for this and that and instead accepting the fact that they’re both here now and need to find a way to exist with each other.
They’re saying that Arab nations have a legitimate reason to be concerned about allowing in Palestinian refugees, given that every time a nation has done it, it’s sparked civil war, and that this point has not received a satisfying response.
I’m gonna guess English isn’t their native language, but luckily, I majored in linguistics.
Within Israel, the vast majority of people don’t particularly care about any kind of manifest destiny style reclamation of the West Bank or Gaza, and if that were the only issue, I genuinely don’t think there would be a significant problem.
What essentially everyone does care about, however, is repeatedly having rockets lobbed at them. When people feel under threat, reason starts to fall away, people begin dehumanizing the “other”, and you get the massive mess we have today. The fact of the matter is that Israel will never accept any situation where its people are under threat. No matter what you think about what acts are or aren’t justified or your opinion on how various parts of the history played out, none of that changes this basic reality.
Palestine is not going to be able to militarily eradicate Israel. There is precisely zero chance that Israelis allow themselves to be subjected to a second diaspora and they’ll fight to the death to prevent this, and that’s to say nothing of external players like the United States. Again, whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is a true thing.
On the flip side, Israel is perfectly capable of essentially eradicating the Palestinians, though this would subject it to massive international condemnation that would also have huge economic impacts. You’re already beginning to see whispers of this as the world increasingly sees Israel’s response in Gaza as being excessively harsh. The most they could do is a slow and steady degradation of Palestinian society while encouraging them to “voluntarily” leave, which is arguably what the strategy has essentially been under Likud with settlements and the like.
So, what’s required for a peaceful co-existence? Firstly, you need a mutual acknowledgement from both leaders (and also, a legitimate Palestinian leadership in the first place) that the other side exists and has a right to do so, ie, Palestinians giving up on the idea of eradicating Israel and Israelis giving up on the idea of fully annexing and ethnically cleaning Palestinian lands. This is not a trivial thing. The Israeli far-right, though they’re not dominant, are growing and believe they have a divine right to the West Bank, with the Arabs being seen as little more than animals in the way. The extreme Palestinian side is that all Israelis are essentially foreign invaders and should be forcibly removed or killed. Both of these positions must be completely taken off the table.
Secondly, Israel will not engage unless it is confident that its security will not be threatened, which will in practice mean that Palestinian authorities must be de-militarized beyond what’s necessary for basic local law enforcement. Again, this might seem unfair, and hell, it probably is. But the fact of the matter remains that Israel is the side holding the guns here, so you either play by their rules and try to find some positive outcome, or you flip the table and enjoy the complete loss, but with some moral satisfaction. Similarly, there would probably need to be some kind of border controls for imports that Israeli authorities can inspect for covert weapons shipments, since it’s a known thing that Iran does regularly try to bring weapons into Gaza. Ideally, this would be some kind of bi-national force with Palestinian cooperation.
If you reach these points, then you still have other very big questions to deal with, like precise borders, land swaps, the question of Jerusalem, how to connect Gaza and the West Bank, any right of return for displaced Palestinians both recently and during the Nakba, and plenty of other things I’m sure I’m forgetting about. But ultimately, if you have a Palestinian and Israeli leadership that are actually interested in peace and accept the existence of the other, and both agree to cooperate on matters of security and prioritizing that peace above and past grievances, no matter how legitimate, that gives you a real foundation you can build from.
I wouldn’t get my hopes up though.
I’m not saying that the terms can’t be more transparent, because they absolutely can be.
But if you have become aware of this practice and you continue to participate, you have de facto agreed to it. You can of course agree to the terms and continue to criticize them, but you don’t get to sign up for a soccer game and then claim that the rules against using your hands don’t actually apply to you. If you don’t want to face the consequences of how distributed services like this fundamentally work, don’t use them.
I mean, yes?
If you do not agree to the terms of a service, do not use the service. This is the case for essentially every system ever. You can go complain about it on Reddit or something if you like.
Ok, you mean I could be getting paid to not panic about Threads? If you have a referral link, I’d greatly appreciate it!
Implying that anyone who disagrees with you must be a paid shill is not the rhetorical dunk you apparently think it is.
I quite liked it, personally.
I imagine saying that is going to be treated as an admission of heresy here though.
Steamboat Willie, the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, will become public domain in literally 13 days.
Info that is publically broadcast, that technically must be publically broadcast, that isn’t necessarily personally identifiable, and is only linked to a user-chosen pseudonym probably isn’t going to be found to have much of a right to privacy.
That’s proven to be both unpopular and often having unintended side effects.