Maybe I was too cryptic. The election being over means that we are not choosing trump for antitrust policy (or better, what he says he will do) and ignore the human rights violation. He is already going to be president, and those human rights violation will anyway happen. So why can't we talk about the antitrust bit in isolation? It's a separate area AND, we are not in election campaign, nobody will vote Trump because of his antitrust posture today, at the expense of the human rights.
With regards to the pick itself, I have no opinion. But I didn't read a single piece that criticized the pick itself (which appeared to be OK?), almost every critique just highlighted that this pick happens in a specific context of shitty policies (project 2025 etc.). Which again, true, but in my opinion is forcing to expand the context. Once again, we are not in election campaign, nobody is proposing to be a single-issue voter on antitrust.
Not only can Trump do something, his actions will be the single most dominating force determining the trajectory of anti-trust environment
Sorry, I think my sentence was not clear. What I mean is that he can do "nothing", " something good" (better) or "something bad" (worse).
If his actions (or words) for now fall into the "something good" - this is anyway fully independent from all the "something bad" that he will surely do in many other areas, why can't be discussed independently? Why it's not possible to talk about this single issue? The rest is going to happen independently from what he does in the antitrust area, so isn't still a net positive if here he does "something good"?
uphold him or R's as leading lights on a topic such as privacy
But this also didn't happen, and it's also not logically true anyway. You could be a champion for privacy and at the same time - say - enact completely terrible policy on prisoners conditions (human rights). So in general it's an absolutely arbitrary statement that gravitate towards a platitude. Specifically anyway, he has not been praised to be a champion for privacy, the benefit to privacy is indirect, and stems from a (possible) harder posture on tech monopolies. It was not even said that Trump does it for privacy as the end goal. Fully indirect effect. In fact, it's also possible that trump might be harsher on monopolies and indirectly benefiting privacy of people by providing a fairer market where privacy companies can thrive, and at the same time a point some idiot that wants to backdoor encryption anywhere in some other position (another user mentioned this - which is a very good argument).
that it's silly to celebrate the one exception to an otherwise negative record
I disagree with this based on the above (nobody said oh look what good champion of human rights Trump is because he will do something that indirectly may benefit privacy for everyone).
In fact, I believe a few reasons of a previous record IN THIS AREA were cited by the guy (and later by the proton account). how good or solid examples I don't know, but it was not all based just on a tweet with some propaganda.
The election already happened. Therefore it's not a matter of picking.
With regards of antitrust and big tech, Trump can do nothing, worse or better. In case of "better" there are indirect privacy wins. Everything else is completely unrelated, it's not like the Trump administration will break up a monopoly every 3 other human rights he violates.
So what does it mean
Privacy is a human rights issue. Republicans have signaled very strongly that they're going to violate more human rights. It's a net loss for privacy if that happens, even if big tech is a bit more restrained.
If "big tech is not restrained" it's going to be the same or worse, so why we wouldn't be happy at least if that happens?
I didn't read a celebration of Trump as a win for human rights tout court, which could have prompted this response (I.e., hey, might be a win for privacy, but it's a loss for x, y, z).
OK, but then that was exactly my point. Antitrust is one way to target those companies, hence they had to suck up. Therefore them paying (peanuts in the grand scheme of things) could be seen as the exact opposite of "they are all in the same team".
I mean, they showed agreement on one issue, which is obviously important for Proton and as a consequence beneficial for the general population (fairer competition with privacy respecting companies).
Yeah but why they wanted to please him? What's the benefit for them? Why they wouldn't want to please previous administrations? The other user mentioned that Trump is very transactional, and that sounds quite right too.
Either way, look at Facebook, literally went through a shitstorm to align, that is a sign of weakness in my opinion.
Actually I disagree on the latest part. I actually questioned, why google and Facebook had to go kiss the ring and pay some bucks to Trump, and didn't have to do that before? This for me is a sign of a disalignment between big tech and the administration.
That said, it's very much possible (I would say likely) trump won't do shit and he just happens to have the "correct" position on this particular issue because it can be used to attack the Californian elite (I.e. dem elite). But it's a matter of fact that it's auspicable he will follow up with action on his words on this, even if for the wrong reasons.
It's not even a matter of "thinking" that, it's basically what he said. All his "siding" is in the context of antitrust and breaking tech monopolies. I don't think trump will do much in this space, but dems didn't do much either. If Trump will (the election is over anyway, so we are not discussing of choosing trump for this) it's good, even if it comes from the Trump administration.
I don't know any guide, but deliverability is the biggest concern and it may also not be fully under control. Sometimes IP blocks get blacklisted or deranked and your emails end in spam, and you might not even know that.
1,2 and 3 are completely irrelevant. 1 is completely normal, 2 missed the point that the wallet (which I don't use, I never owned crypto) has nothing to do with privacy and 4 is an optional marketing strategy to incentivise migration from google. Nothing is wrong with any of this.
Oh yeah, I have same issue. Certain things are impossible to enlarge. It's infuriating.
Same with moving window controls on the right. You would think a "premium" OS would let you choose trivial things like this, but no.
Apple "superior" workflow means bending to use tools and workflows they designed, the way they intended. Anything else and you are generally going to be blocked one way or another.
Being in a similar situation as you (have to use for work), I would also add the fact that docking station support when it comes to displays is awful, almost nobody got 2 displays working with the dock and I have to plug one HDMI directly into the Mac. Then there is the fact that it's impossible to turn on the computer via the docking station button, so I had to just use sleep instead, and 40% of the times the USB peripherals get disconnected, so I can't wake it up except by unplugging and replugging the docking cable.
Besides that, I have 2 2k display and using Mac they are substantially more blurred than they are with Linux or windows.it's like if everything is bold on Mac. Apparently it has to do with some feature which got removed for non-4k monitors or something.
Thankfully we managed to get Aerospace now installed (I.e. approved), because being used to efficient i3-like window managing, using macos native window management felt like being back in bronze age. There are so many things that apple built expecting you to use the trackpad for efficient workflows... Why would I use a trackpad in a (home) office setting, when it's terrible for ergonomics, requires the laptop to be open etc...
That is "non me ne fotte un cazzo"/"non me ne frega un cazzo" I suppose.
There are so many variations, like "me ne sbatto il cazzo" (also "I jerk off to it").
My personal favorite anyway is relates to this, bit with more subtext, quite used in Rome: "e ar popolo?" ("and to the people...?") which implies "e ar popolo de Milazzo?" ("and to the people from Milazzo?"), which has the riming rethorical answer "non jene frega n'cazzo" (same as the first). I love it because it's both ironical, passive-aggressive, dismissive and (somewhat) vulgar at the same time.
If you are referring to ancient Greece/Rome as a culture where homosexuality (specifically sex between men) was normalized, that's wrong.
What actually was normal was men having sex with male kids, not adults (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece). This is clearly something we now consider a complete abomination, obviously, but men did not use to have sex with other adult men (surely there were cases, but it was not a widespread cultural phenomenon like pederasty).
This is also why I don't think it makes sense to use historical references to help build a moral foundation about what's right and what's wrong. Gay sex is fine because it's consensual adults enjoying and not harming anybody, not because there was some golden age in which this was accepted.
That the world is not a cartoon and even idiots have structural power and it's not me "letting them"?
Aldo again, this is not a "me" discussion. I will be fine. But many people in the industry will be screwed.
Tech worker collective perspective. Those whose jobs will generally be affected due to idiots in position of power who are ready to believe that LLMs can do a good chunk of what devs do.
Maybe I was too cryptic. The election being over means that we are not choosing trump for antitrust policy (or better, what he says he will do) and ignore the human rights violation. He is already going to be president, and those human rights violation will anyway happen. So why can't we talk about the antitrust bit in isolation? It's a separate area AND, we are not in election campaign, nobody will vote Trump because of his antitrust posture today, at the expense of the human rights.
With regards to the pick itself, I have no opinion. But I didn't read a single piece that criticized the pick itself (which appeared to be OK?), almost every critique just highlighted that this pick happens in a specific context of shitty policies (project 2025 etc.). Which again, true, but in my opinion is forcing to expand the context. Once again, we are not in election campaign, nobody is proposing to be a single-issue voter on antitrust.
Sorry, I think my sentence was not clear. What I mean is that he can do "nothing", " something good" (better) or "something bad" (worse). If his actions (or words) for now fall into the "something good" - this is anyway fully independent from all the "something bad" that he will surely do in many other areas, why can't be discussed independently? Why it's not possible to talk about this single issue? The rest is going to happen independently from what he does in the antitrust area, so isn't still a net positive if here he does "something good"?
But this also didn't happen, and it's also not logically true anyway. You could be a champion for privacy and at the same time - say - enact completely terrible policy on prisoners conditions (human rights). So in general it's an absolutely arbitrary statement that gravitate towards a platitude. Specifically anyway, he has not been praised to be a champion for privacy, the benefit to privacy is indirect, and stems from a (possible) harder posture on tech monopolies. It was not even said that Trump does it for privacy as the end goal. Fully indirect effect. In fact, it's also possible that trump might be harsher on monopolies and indirectly benefiting privacy of people by providing a fairer market where privacy companies can thrive, and at the same time a point some idiot that wants to backdoor encryption anywhere in some other position (another user mentioned this - which is a very good argument).
I disagree with this based on the above (nobody said oh look what good champion of human rights Trump is because he will do something that indirectly may benefit privacy for everyone). In fact, I believe a few reasons of a previous record IN THIS AREA were cited by the guy (and later by the proton account). how good or solid examples I don't know, but it was not all based just on a tweet with some propaganda.