I really wish it had a 3.5mm audio jack. I don't see what companies stand to earn, other than money, when they remove the headphone jack.

I can see why Apple and Samsung removed it because the they can market their own wireless headphones.

Removing the jack only removes capability, it is not like older phones didn't have the capability to connect to Bluetooth headphones

Why is Ubuntu pushing snaps so hard? Is there objectively a benefit to them apart from Flatpak?

It seems like an odd hill to die on.

This is really hard to process.

I came to beehaw because it seemed to very welcoming and the fediverse provided freedom which was excellent. It is difficult to process because now users on beehaw are being told "you can be open and welcoming as long as you don't dare integrate your beehaw and lemmy world experience". Hopefully the beehaw staff understand that ultimately, users desire freedom to choose how they want their online experience.

I can only see this hurting beehaw in the future and hopefully this is a short misstep and not a permanent decision. The only reason that beehaw has seen massive growth is because of the association with lemmy world and other popular instances. This fragmentation will only hurt Lemmy when Reddit was seen as a "one stop shop" for all posts.

It doesn't make sense while if this data, that would usually require a warrant if not already being sold, is allowed to be collected by companies.

Companies may argue that users consent to this in the terms and conditions of when they start using the product but what about those users that aren't a Google, Facebook or "insert tech corporation here" user? Those users never consented to data collection but their data is being collected just the same.

The issue is not the government buying this data. That is just a symptom of the root cause which is lack of consumer privacy laws.

I see they deleted it. I wonder what is the best way to deal with these groups spreading this hateful messaging. If organizations and people keep deleting and censoring them, doesn't that just further radicalize them?

Their whole movement revolves around there being a conspiracy against what they are saying. When they get censored it feeds into their confirmation bias and further affirms their viewpoint thus making them think that they need to take more aggressive aka terrorist action.

While I know it's an unpopular opinion, I think groups like this are better dealt with engagement and education. The censoring and ridicule being thrown around further polarizes places like the US even further than they are.

If we keep censoring groups I can't imagine anything good coming from it. Their hate will just get stronger and more justified in their eyes.

Are globalists and rich people only Jewish though? Not at all.

I think people are really stretching to call it anti-semitic.

I don't like how the song addresses people with welfare but I definitely wouldn't call it racist or anti -semitic. However that's just my own opinion and people can form whatever conclusions they want.

You implied that if we kept New Horizons going, that we would get more Pluto pics. I would love for that to happen however it is physically impossible for New Horizons to turn around to see Pluto. It simply doesn't have enough fuel to negate its over 10,000 mph (16,000 kph for you metric folks) speed relative to the sun and then accelerate to that same speed in the opposite direction.

The only place New Horizons is ever going is beyond our solar system which has tons of cool science involved by studying solar winds near the heliopause but unfortunately no cool pictures. Also, I am not a scientist but I am not sure what data gained from solar winds study would be new compared to what was already provided by Voyager 1 and 2.

If shutting down New Horizons means costs savings that allow a new probe to be sent to orbit either Uranus or Neptune, which haven't been visited in decades, I am all for shutting down New Horizons.

Yes Russians (Wagner Mercenaries) have started fighting the Russian Army.

The leader of the Wagner Group, Prigozhin says his fight is against Russian defense leadership. He has not openly said anything against Putin at least from what I've seen.

However, don't mistake this guy for some sort of "freedom fighter" he is still very much in support of the invasion of Ukraine and just thinks the Russian defense leadership has lost its focus and is using the conflict mostly for career advancement.

Interesting article. I don't think the linguistic argument used in the OPED is going to sway anyone to support gun control.

I think a lot of the efforts to implement gun control ignore the nature of the US. The country is large and in some areas people can not rely on quick police response or if the police can respond quickly, they can't be trusted to act in good faith.

We certainly need some gun control to prevent those who are mentally ill or previously convicted of violent crimes from owning guns. Even processes for these, if put in place, must be appealable to ensure universal fair treatment. Additionally mandatory wait times would be great as well.

I think bans of X gun because it's scary are non sensical because those bans are not going to win over any gun rights advocates to create a national consensus.

The large majority of gun owners never commit a violent crime and should not be told to give them up because of the actions of a few.

Is that a Firefox issue or Google making proprietary standards that only work with chromium based browsers?

I think Google is trying to be anti competitive. I have noticed similar issues when using Firefox with Google Docs.

Take a look at what a former Mozilla exec had to say on the issue: https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has-sabotaged-firefox-for-years/

Well the fact that they are saying it was a catastrophic implosion leads to the thought that it was crushed in a very short amount of time maybe even a few seconds so I doubt they had time to drown.

I'm worried about the safety implications of bringing them back. What if they got caught in an escalator, elevator door, taxi door, normal door.

Plus I think it would be rude if you are walking down the sidewalk and your cape/cloak keeps touching people who are walking by you.

Bitwarden for sure! It is certainly the easiest way to increase security on all your accounts by making extremely secure passwords. Plus you can self host it if you want!

Beehaw is dangerously close to group think that shouts down/deletes other viewpoints. There is a difficult to discern line between a view you don't agree with and what is labeled here as "close minded".

I myself experienced that when I posed a opposing viewpoint regarding a search for non right wing podcasts. I can understand wanting a podcast without any mention of politics but to say I don't want to listen to X group because I don't agree isn't a positive way to take disagreement.

I have noticed that beehaw tends to shout down people that disagree which is not beneficial. The more you shout down/ignore a group the louder they become. That is the main reason why I think, at least the US, is in the polarized political environment it is in now. We have lost our thought of empathy, discourse and evaluation of ideas different from our own.

I would recommend using Linux Mint. It is Ubuntu without Gnome Shell and snaps. They use Flatpak instead. I have been enjoying it ever since I jumped ship from Ubuntu about 2 years ago.

True but in this case it's not populace deciding to make the food import ban, it's the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). They are using this opportunity to create a impact on Japan’s economy which is already struggling under the strain of inflation the country hasn't experienced in decades.

It is just political posturing and nothing else. Not out of concern for the Chinese people.

I appreciate the recommendation on the reading. I would like to learn more regarding the argument.

I will need to see how or if the author confronts the variables between German and other cultures. At least for America, people are very individualistic. That's why organizing for a common cause or social movement is quite difficult in the US.

As for the thoughts on censorship/deletion/blocking whatever you call it coming from government or private entity, we can look at the War on Drugs. For decades the government and organizations have tried to stop drug use. It hasn't been effective.

Another analogy is the entertainment industry's war against digital piracy. They have used an international effort that included so many DMCA orders but yet piracy still exists after decades of attempts.

In both the case of drugs and piracy, those who advocate for those are more strongly motivated when pursued or hindered by organization, companies or other organizations attempts.

One thing that Google does is estimate your location based on the WiFi networks around you.

When Android phones connect to the internet, they send to Google the details of WiFi networks nearby. If a user has their location (GPS based) turned on, the phone will send it's location along with the WiFi networks info.

Google is then able to build a database from many user's location with the networks they had around them. If your phone has its WiFi on (even if it isn't connected to one), it tells Google "I see these networks around me" and then Google is able to tell your phone that based on the ones you are seeing you are probably in X location because users in that vicinity have seen the same networks.

The same thing can be done for cell phone towers so even if the phone has WiFi turned off, it can estimate a location based on the cell phone towers it is seeing.

So it is possible for Google to give you emergency alerts with precise location turned off but they probably have treated alerts as an "all or nothing thing" where you give them all your location data or you don't get the alerts. I think their legal justification for not providing the alerts is that you can get alerts from non Google products (radio) and the precise location requirement is "vital" to make sure the right alerts are getting to you.

For a long time I was against what this senator is doing since I was ignorant of what his proposed end was.

His position to get DOD policy codified in law because the Hyde Amendment exists, makes sense.

However, I want to be clear that the ultimate outcome should be the status quo remaining. DoD personnel should still get reimbursed for travel regarding abortions.

It is embarrassing that it takes several months to get this resolved.

Well he was the first senator, in the history of the US, to vote for impeachment of a sitting President in the same party.

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/5/21125118/mitt-romney-impeachment-vote-history

Other than that, I am not well versed on his history enough to make comment.

Well we don't necessarily have to agree. We all have our own biases.

You and I may view drugs or piracy in a more favorable light therefore we are biased against hateful speech promoted by Donald Trump and his followers. However, to them, they don't view their speech as hateful but may view drugs or piracy as harmful and must be banned/censored.

A drug user or person who engages in piracy will always say "what I am doing is not a crime, look at all these other things that are horrible!". That's because they are biased in favor of their actions. Those who spread hate speech have the same bias.

That is where the similarity exists: How the individuals view their actions. In all of these cases, the individuals will respond the same to external actions to hinder or repress their actions.

Hateful speech does no good for society and only brings harm. However, I believe the response to hate speech is more nuanced than "ban it/block it/delete it".

On a totally different note, I love your Seinfeld reference in your profile. I take it you are an importer/exporter?

What the author used as their title is not the most ideal however the main point is the benefits buying has over renting.

However I understand that people can't afford a down payment on a house in major cities.

Out where I live houses can go for 100-200k so it is more achievable for those of more modest income.

Obviously I never intended to put people down because they don't make 200k+ a year.

I think the tone statement is true. There were probably were some ways for me to improve my phrasing.

I go assuming the benefit of the doubt for most if not all posts since they are text only. We can derive a lot of things from body language and actual tone in real life.

Yes I do disagree with the moderation policy here. However, just because I disagree with it doesn't mean that I intend to be disrespectful to any individual on this server.

I stay because at least the mods are active, get involved in discussions, and care to be transparent with how operations are run for the instance (the monthly financial reports are great).

Beehaw is my first experience with Lemmy, have I liked all of it? No but the fact that it is federated (as all Lemmy instances are) and transparent, which doesn't happen for all instances, is refreshing.

Always online games really bug me. For someone like myself that goes out to sea for several weeks as part of my job, I won't have connection during those time periods thus I can't play the game I played.

Additionally, if the company removes the servers that the game connects to once the game has been out for whatever they determine to be "long enough" the game becomes unplayable

I haven't seen an upside for always online games only downsides. Totally understand that games with an online multi-player component need that internet connection but there is no reason, that I have seen, that are single player games or have single player components need always online connection.

Exactly!

An analogy that works for this is the War on Drugs and the entertainment industry's attempts to block media piracy.

Both movements attempt to stomp out drugs and piracy but have been ineffective. Actually, it just makes those who support piracy and drugs try better and different methods of distribution or organization.

I don't think that the board members are sitting there and pondering how they can exercise more control on the user via snaps.

The auto updating is a nice benefit but it doesn't seem like a big enough benefit to allocate so many developer man hours into. I would think that Canonical would realize that the developers time is better spent making features the users want.

But what do I know? I'm just someone posting on Lemmy not a Canonical board member haha

I'm not saying it's easy. From the people I have interacted with that are in the vocal minority group, often have no interaction with the groups they are vehemently against. If those people are given the opportunity to interact with someone that is trans or a group they are dehumanizing, they will come to relate to them and that will change their views. When people interact with people they will humanize them and realize that first and foremost we are all human beings.

A good case study of this is Darryl Davis, a black man, who ended up befriending several members of the KKK. Those people he interacted with ended up abandoning the Klan and that made an impact on racism.

If people demonstrated more of that compassion, the world would be a better place than it currently is.

It is okay for people to disagree. That's completely fine and it's totally fine for you to make your comment.

I figured people would disagree. That's par for the course here.

Whats not okay is people making comments like "oh you made a duplicate account". Why is that? While the person disagrees, which is fine, it shows that there are people who believe just because you are supporting an opposing viewpoint, you must not be a real person or actually only one person with that view.

Should it be moderated? No, not at all. It is just a symptom of the beehaw culture of moderation to bee nice.

Well the moderating is part of the problem. Moderators that delete or restrict comments that aren't "nice" drives those people that have been moderated into groups that reaffirm their beliefs, however dangerous they may be.

I take a view that even if something isn't "nice" it should never be moderated unless it advocates for violence against a group or puts endangers someone's privacy. In life we may find ourselves in conversations or with people we can't censor or shout down so why would we do it online?

People may ask why I'm still on beehaw and the fact is that I don't agree with many of the viewpoints advocated here but I have to practice what I preach. If I run away from beehaw and don't contribute then the community gets sucked in further to group think on a specific viewpoint.

What's the reason behind thinking half of them are acting in bad faith? Is that because you disagree with them?

The thought of "there is no reasoning with them" is why each group of the electorate has become more and more polarized. Things have been getting worse because all groups only want to talk to people that agree with their own viewpoint.

We all can just do a better job of talking with fellow Americans about these things respectfully, admit positions we can compromise on and educate to convince on positions we are less likely to compromise on.

Certainly true.

Right now we have a military that serves the interests of the industrial complex and not the other way around.

In WWII it wasn't that way. The government did not have companies that it would be seduced into paying more than a fair value for military equipment

I had a good experience.

Just used it for a brief time and met my wife by using the app. Two of my friends also found their wives on the app.

I think it is a place to find more quality interactions than say Tinder. Granted, any app can be used for casual meet ups.

To be fair, I don't quite understand the reasoning on why more judges should be added.

If we have 19 judges and 10 are conservative then we are in the same situation as now.

If we have 19 judges and 10 are liberal, we are in the opposite situation but the other side is making the argument "there should be more judges"

In a representative democracy there will be times that a certain side doesn't get what they want but that is not a reason to rewrite the rules to improve the chances of a particular view being more represented. The spirit of rule changing is how we got things like gerrymandering.

While I know that people don't like this opinion but just because people don't like the conservative or liberal judges doesn't mean those judges have any less of a claim on the position they hold. The courts views on issues ebbs and flows over decades.

If citizens take issue with the current justices on the court, they need to hold the incumbent politicians accountable that approved the justices to be there.

I really enjoy Darknet Diaries. It is unfortunate he went to a once a month release cycle but I understand it is for a better work life cycle.

If you are a fan of Darknet Diaries I would also recommend Hacked. It has two hosts which have a good dynamic. Plus they don't touch politics so it avoids any controversy.

The KKK is a violent extremist organization. How is interacting with that any less risky than the current political climate?

If people just give up on dialog there is 0% of change but if we don't give up and there is even a 5% chance of humanizing with someone to change their hurtful view, that is many thousands of times better than no chance.

Things will never improve if we give up.

What are you talking about?

Is it not possible for two different people to share similar opinions?

Yeah the privacy issues are the largest concern.

However I think because consumers have become used to having cameras and microphones in their house it will likely not be addressed to the degree it needs to be.

I think this whole discourse regarding safe spaces is a good explanation of why safe spaces, in my opinion, aren't needed and are flawed.

People will normally flock to groups that provide confirmation bias. Why? Because most people don't want to be told their idea isn't good. So safe spaces are de facto already created by group think that already exists.

Additionally, how would the initial comment questioning the need for safe spaces in this thread have been handled in a safe space? Would it automatically be moderated/deleted because it didn't agree with the published safe space narrative? We have all had a respectful discourse regarding the validity of safe spaces which is great. If we didn't have this people could not understand the opposing viewpoint or change their viewpoint.

Well that is just one individual out of millions. Just because you don't see a need doesn't mean others don't. Plus us as individuals can't determine what other large groups can and cannot have. We don't have the same life experiences.

Someone may be the victim of a sexual assault and when living in a rural area having something to defend themselves gives them some peace of mind.

Imagine living in a small neighborhood where everyone knows everyone and you don't get along with a corrupt police force. When you are in danger from someone during a home invasion or if you are hiking in the wilderness, you may not trust the cops to act in your best interest