I'm not in the printer market in anyway, but I know that the current inkjet printer market works by selling the printer at a loss and making the big bucks on the ink you'll need.
If some company made an actually good printer, they would have to increase the price significantly in relation to the rest of the market and, for the simple consumer, they see the much lower price tag and just go with that anyways.
The complicit part is the most bullshit thing I have ever heard.
They said unequivocally that they won't support it, just like they didn't support Manifest V3.
Regardless of that, if you buy a printer with a scanner function, that function should work... well, as a scanner.
There is no reason for it not to work like that other than negligence or malice.
Just because Brave forks of Chromium, that doesn't mean they have to accept every change Google does and they can also do their own changes (ex: not supporting Manifest V3).
At least they are financially independent from Google, which you can't say about Firefox.
In this case, I believe that the clients will be signed by the big companies (Apple, Google Microsoft, etc) and these signatures are what will be trusted.
For instance, if you download Chrome, it will be signed by Google. But if you try to alter it in anyway, the signature will not be valid and the website won't trust you anymore.
They say it's to stop people from stealing iPhones to sell for parts.
What they don't say is that the only reason there is a market for that is that they aren't willing to sell the parts directly at an affordable price....
In the middle of this controversy there is just one thing I don't really understand: why haven't they banned the offending account?
Capitalism seeks the highest profit, but what that means depends on the customers.
With the Netflix password sharing crackdown risky bet, customers answered loud and clear: they are more than willing to pay more money to access the same content instead of standing their ground on the decision.
When there is actual competition and customers are demanding of what the offering should be, that's when we see prices go down.
There are an increasing number of markets where monopolies and deals between companies leave people without any choice to make at all, but I don't think the market of streaming services is an example of this.
Your last point is laughable.
Yes Brave cannot make commits to Chromium, but it makes changes to their own repos (well, obviously) and can also accept/reject changes Google makes to Chromium.
In my opinion, Firefox is more of a slave to Google than Brave will ever be because they rely entirely on Google giving them money for the default search engine.
Is Brave's revenue model scammy? Maybe. But at least they aren't Google little bitch.
To me the only thing lacking from Matrix is the ability to search encrypted conversations on mobile.
I believe Element has it for desktop and iOS, but nothing for Android...
But normal people unfortunately don't know that many resources to research this and think that if something says it does x, it will do x.
For tech people, we know the whole printer market scam, but for normal people, they just see a bunch of printers with multiple functions being sold.
Yeah, and in cases where there is a monopoly or quasi-monopoly of a product it becomes really exploitative.
But in this case in particular, I'm gonna have to say it's the fault of the users.
They chose to pay more for a worst product that had already been declining in quality steadily, when there are tons of other streaming services with good content.
I mean, he probably cleaned it out with alchool and the ultrasonic first.
Come on man, don't be like that...
You ask me that today that I didn't bring the family oppression map to work....
I just think people can just have some slightly less nice things, maybe instead of buying a f150 truck get a small utility vehicle, stuff like that.
How to tell me you're a dumb american that doesn't know Europe without telling me you're a dumb american that doesn't know Europe.
You're wrong. My family was so good at enslaving that we even enslaved the ocean. But then we had to hush the Atlantis incident....
Got it. Perhaps he's used to it due to pubs in the macbooks.
The browser as is right now is open source and has way better defaults for privacy than Firefox (currently it seems it is the best browser in this aspect after librewolf. see: https://privacytests.org ).
Unfortunately, I think some people here believe that an abortion at 2 weeks is exactly the same as at 9 months...
They only introduced this recently because of the always increasing backlash against their practices.
And thing is, they only sells parts for a small subset of devices from the last decade. If you have one of the latest devices (from iPhone 12), great. If not, get fucked.
They can do whatever they want, they only do it because Google allows it.
By that logic, Brave is also completely against Google because they block their ads and go against them.
They're doing it as part of reducing their carbon footprint. There's so much carbon produced during manufacturing that they need devices to continue being used for about ten years after the original sale, otherwise the company will never be carbon neutral.
Bull fucking shit.
Apple goes out of their way to stop repairs. They ask the companies that supply their microcomponents to create a new version of them, just different enough for the original not to work, then make them sign a contract to only sell to them. By doing this, third party component level repair shops can't just buy the components from the supplier and have to have a stock of donors boards in order to repair anything.
When you go to the Apple store because something in your board failed, they charge you the price of a new device to repair it and then advise you to just buy a new one. Even if you decide to do the repair because it's more eco-friendly even thought it costs the same, you will lose all your data, because they just replace the entire thing instead of the milimeter capacitor or microchip that is broken.
Apple's newer models, that are supported for self repair, are designed to be easy to repair. That's why they're the only ones that are supported.
Apple devices are still a pain in the ass to open and use non-standard screws with tons of different sizes, making sure that if you mix a longer and a shorter screw, you will probably break something.
I switched to the Poco F5 from my Mi Mix 2S. Overall I think it's probably the best bang for buck in the category. If you know your way around MIUI's shennanigans, it should be pretty great. The only complaint I have (it's really small) is that I was used to tap the power button for shortcuts, but now that becomes weird because it always unlocks the phone.
The nyt link I couldn't read because it's paywalled.
The other link I do agree that he's wrong about women's oppression over time and I get that that's why you call him a misogynist. To me, it seems he's saying that women's oppression was due to the constraints of the time period and not the active need of men to want to put women down. While I think he's wrong I don't think he hates women or thinks they're inferior because of it. But the rest of the article is laughable. The reason people reject feminism and wokeness is not because of the need to maintain men in the pedestal of priviledge. It's because it is hypocritical (tends to cherry pick issues and even subsets of issues) and because they hyperfocus on equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity.
Still, if you were sharing with 3 friends before, it's a 4x price spike for you.
Organization represents anti-corporate interests.
CEO gets paid almost all donations despite poor performance.
Seems pretty corporate interests to me.
I just think it's stupid people are always crying that Chromium forks are "controlled by Google" when they can do whatever they want with the fork.
I'm not saying that Firefox is bad because they take Google's money.
I just think that if you consider that, they are more dependent on Google than Brave is.
And since one of the main complaints of people is that they want to turn away from Google stuff, that should be taken into consideration.
What have they done for this to keep happening?
Why is he a misogynist?
Also, I'm not saying men should cry less. I'm just saying that the people who tell men it's ok to cry are usually the ones who get more bothered when it happens.
Ah yes, the truth that "anyone can be whatever they want for whatever reason".
To me for something to be hateful, there needs to be intent to hurt behind it. In this case I believe he is just wrong and missguided.
But to each person different definitions, I guess.
Yes yes, everyone famous you disagree is evil. Start making a list.
Quick question, do you also say that type of stuff to black people who's ancestors sold the slaves to my ancestor for a very economically viable price?
The only reason they're a competitor to Google is because Google allows them to be by giving them money for the default search engine.
They're just sailing their boat until it sinks.
I know that, and probably everyone here knows something similar. The issue is the average consumer that doesn't care about tech.
Sorry friend, but reasoning with these people is always changing.
If you think it's ok and you're not from the affected demography, you can't have a voice and "you're probably white".
If you think it's ok and you're actually from the affected demography, you're just too dumb to understand your condition and have to let the white saviors and the "right" people from your demography explain to you why you should be angry and offended at everything.
It's a stupid term that is based on an antiquated mindset where Asian people are not creative and cannot invent anything of substance; we are only able to poorly imitate what the West develops. It needs to die.
The term at least since the 90s means to modify stuff to your heart's content and literally creating something new, unique and personal.
Idk where you went to get that "can't invent anything of substance" thing, but you might want to check your internalized racism.
I said in my comment that Europeans made it worse. I was just saying that those places were never peaceful to begin with.
Yup, people have been suggesting this for a while, but that goes against the interests of Apple.
Also, it's still confusing to me how they just allow for someone who sees you put your pin and steals your iPhone to be able to hijack your iCloud account.
I mean, the Netflix password sharing crackdown was a vote put on the users to decide if it's a good thing to do or not.
And it appears that the results are good, since they are reporting subscriber growth and more revenue. Now every other service will follow because, otherwise, they'd just be wasting untapped profits.
I don't like this profit maximization companies are trying to do, but one thing is clear: people prefer to pay more for the extra convenience than to stand their ground in their principals.
Even if people like us stand our ground, most won't even care (I can see it in my personal relationships as well).