You can't halt a bank collapse, but you can postpone it and attempt to reduce the impact with inflation which is exactly what has happened.
Additionally, if you don't address the lack of regulation that allowed the collapses in 2008, which we absolutely did not, it will keep happening and those future occurrences will grow in severity. Since now, in order to 'make money', the frauds have to be bigger, faster, and more aggressive.
What do you mean you can't halt a bank collapse? That's exactly what we did. There was a solvency issue when panic ensued after MBS's blew up and we were able to limit a domino effect of bank failures after moving fast to inject capital into the system.
Do you mean it in a philosophical sense similar to the idea that every company will eventually go bankrupt given enough time? Any major crisis is capable of bringing down banks, its inherently a feature of fractional reserve banking but the benefits have so far outweighed the risks.
Just remember that now instead of your ISP knowing every site you visit, Apple now will.
So where as in the olden days, in order to figure out who you were, some actor had to buy logs from the destination sites and from the ISPs, then correlate.
Now they can just buy the information from Apple. How convenient for Apple.
I know Apple says they will only share your information with trusted partners and only with your consent which is implicit when you use private relay. No one ever asks who these partners are though. Probably the same people that used to buy your data from the destination sites and ISPs...
agree - apple says they're doing this for "privacy" but there is no way to verify they are not tracking/storing this data themselves. in todays world its simply too valuable and apples tentacles are far too reaching for the data to be thrown out. in fact, there are reports of an increased advertising push already [0].
id wager there is an internal team analyzing this data for predictive trends across all their product lines, akin to facebook using onavo data to target and value whatsapp relative to messenger.
it could be used to guide which new streaming series candidate gets more funding/marketing, popular colors for new iPhones, price elasticity across the range, etc.
and of course the surveillance aspect always looms in the background.
* I thought only one of these companies was notorious for spyware and surveillance? One has made not tracking/privacy a primary marketing angle, the other is kind of an also-ran on mobile?
That said I think I'm 100% on your side of the "hooray, lets require an account with some finite set of identity providers, wcgw?" debate
** This doesn't even make sense. The entire point of the modern secure elements is that they are a "real" hardware token. I get that a bunch of android devices are penny-pinching to the extent they may be dropping actual secure elements but the seems like something google could mandate real secure elements.
*** Agreed with you on <*> + A&G controlling the platforms, but curious about who is trying to get CPU-resident? I think I may have missed this latests insanity :D
Everything in this country, in this life, is a competition. One big zero-sum game.
It starts in high school. Social status, academics, athletics, and now social media followers and likes.
I am very glad that when I was in high school, social media wasn't really a thing yet. I could leave it all at school. Just go home and read, play video games or go outside. Most of my mistakes were limited to the memories of those people who witnessed them first hand.
Kids today are under near constant competition with each other and it takes a toll.
At some point, I hope, without some massive existential crisis serving as the impetuous we can collectively come to the understanding that our technology has vastly outpaced our morality. I hope that the prevailing social norm becomes cooperation over competition and the desire to lift others up instead of stepping on them for your own personal gain.
Not relationships, marriage, work, or community. Even business is rarely zero sum, or the economy wouldn't grow. Generally speaking, business is win-win deals.
> I don't understand how you could think any of this.
If life, community, industry, love, and community were a zero-sum game, a do-nothing loner would be at parity with a dynamic entrepreneur who has a family and a network of colleagues essential to achieving their shared goals.
Particularly in these times of politically weaponized philosophy, it is important to teach children values that are not nihilistic trash.
Exceedingly difficult goals are the most worthy because they require growth. That is to say, expect the world to be grossly unfair, and build strength, friendships, industry, community so that you can construct and defend the fairness you desire. There are an endless number of zero-sum thieves out there who never learned to thrive except by taking from their betters, and you win against them by being better.
Relationships are a huge competition in an atomic family type situation - children competing with spouses for time, spouse/kids competing with grandparents, family competing with friends... and god forbid if you have a family member with medical needs. When time was collective because of extended families, this stress got spread out and not as much noticeable but with the shrinked family unit, this is only going to get worse.
> Relationships are a huge competition in an atomic family type situation - children competing with spouses for time, spouse/kids competing with grandparents, family competing with friends... and god forbid if you have a family member with medical needs.
Wow, I have never experienced competition in that situation. There are scarce resources at times, but that doesn't mean they are distributed by competition. IME, usually people work together toward the greatest good for the family. They love each other and want each other to thrive, and would generally rather sacrifice themselves than see a loved one sacrifice for them. That good faith is never in question.
The question is not of good faith or the competition being overt or malicious type etc. Time is finite - if you are spending on one side, you can't be sending on the remaining sides. Usually the people in your life realize it and adjust for the priority/greater good and so yes, they will willingly sacrifice in that spirit. But the relationships themselves are emotionally competing - if you have, e.g., to choose between relocating for the future of your kids and your ailing parents, those duties are competing, even though the recipients themselves may not be - you will have to choose.
Your experience with relationships, work, and community are different than mine. There's some competition, of course, but relationships, romantic and platonic, IME mostly rely on factors that have little to do with third parties; their success depends on the two people involved - I find that's true even for romantic, monogamous relationships with 3 or more parties as options. Most of my time at work is not spent competing, but cooperating and helping each other.
Mostly, people seem to love to argue about nihilism to some philosophical extreme, but let's separate that from real life.
> Community? What else do you think teens are seeking out online?
Does that mean community is or is not competitive? HN is a community but isn't much competitive.
Competition for partners is a thing but still not zero sum. The number of people in relationships is not fixed. You can increase the sum by starting a relationship that wouldn't otherwise exist.
Satisfaction you get out of it is obviously not zero sum as well.
If this is how teens think, it is no wonder they are miserable. Happiness is not zero sum, it can be created. In fact, it must be created
We've made it in to a competition by creating false scarcities of necessities (mostly housing). If you want a home, you need to be better than your peers.
Status games are multiplayer, zero-sum, hierarchical, judged socially. Get grades, applause, titles now — emptiness later. Natural games are single player, positive-sum, internal, judged by nature/markets.
Seek wealth, not money or status. Wealth is having assets that earn while you sleep. Money is how we transfer time and wealth. Status is your place in the social hierarchy.
Understand that ethical wealth creation is possible. If you secretly despise wealth, it will elude you.
Ignore people playing status games. They gain status by attacking people playing wealth creation games.
I don't know what kind of sterile environment you'd have to live in to play mostly "natural games", and certainly any teenager in any social setting (school) is playing a multiplayer game. Hell almost all humans are playing multiplayer games. Fundamentally, we are social creatures, despite what high philosophy may say
you've edited your post a couple of times so this was a reply to your earlier edit about natural/status games
- People who know nothing about computers and don't want to.
- People who are being held hostage by some third party software that isn't built for ARM/Mac/Linux.
One can argue that Mac's satisfy the first condition as well.
Linux is for people who either don't mind learning how certain things work or outright require an understanding of how they work. Or who just want more choice in how they interact with a computer. Freedom from corporate data-mining and the privacy nightmare that is Windows...and coming soon to MacOS/iOS...is another big reason to seek alternatives.
The modern truth is that, for people with relatively simple needs, there are plenty of Linux flavors that just work as long as your hardware is not from Apple.[>=M1] These flavors have app stores that help even the freshest of newbies find media players, games, office apps, browsers, whatever. The fact that so many contemporary apps run either in a browser or use things like electron also further diminishes the requirement of Windows.
Even Microsoft realizes that Windows OS as a thing isn't something to explicitly sell to people anymore. They have been taking a page from Apple and trying to market how lovely it integrates with Xbox, Teams, the CloudPC versions, whatever. They've also hilariously made Windows 11 look like MacOS/various Linux DEs by transforming the taskbar into a dock and making the start menu look incredibly like Whisker/KDE's menu setup. They are also introducing stuff like virtual desktops, etc like they are some sort of revolution despite being on Linux DE's for eons.
Truth is that there's never been a better time to re-evaluate your computing needs and make some thoughtful choices about your workflows, your privacy, what you actually need vs what's actually on offer in these platforms.
> - People who know nothing about computers and don't want to.
> - People who are being held hostage by some third party software that isn't built for ARM/Mac/Linux.
- people who like to use a wide array of hardware without giving a f** about compatibility concerns [1]
Those same people might know about computers at least as much as you and as a bonus point, might be less arrogant than you.
[1] Because it's the hardware manufacturer's responsibility to make their hardware compatible with Windows, and the vast majority of them do it, competently enough.
There is a third category: "People who may become or currently are my clients or others I want to maintain positive relationships with."
There are plenty of reasons to use Windows. There are more compelling reasons to use Linux for my personal tooling, but I am not the other person. In this case, its a choice of good, better, and best. Personally, I don't care if my car mechanic is a Windows user so long as they can do their job.
If you think Linux protects from viruses, corporate data mining, or more privacy, I suspect you either only use a command-line based browser, are a white-lister with pihole, or are unaware just how actively many utilities are collecting info on you.
Additionally, if you don't address the lack of regulation that allowed the collapses in 2008, which we absolutely did not, it will keep happening and those future occurrences will grow in severity. Since now, in order to 'make money', the frauds have to be bigger, faster, and more aggressive.