Yes, absolutely.

Why is this a question?

“Should people be allowed to keep their rights?” – this is usually intended to spark discussion, but discussing from this pov helps those who want bad things more than those who dont.

by writing articles like this they spark the wrong discussion. extreme analogy, sorry to folks who don’t do analogies: If there is a robber in a persons kitchen. Any discussion is a net negative for that homeowner. why? because the robbers presence alone is a violation of the sanctity of the home. Any and all solutions, start with the robber not being in the kitchen. Any and all discussion, adds _more time to the robber being in the kitchen All of which is a net loss for the homeowner, and potential gain for the robber.

These type’s of horserace articles encourage a type of busywork discussions that waste time because they lead many of those readers away from thinking about the real / pertinent discussions to have.

Exactly.

It’s possible to make things worse when attempting to solve a problem made by uncaring people. Making things better, temporarily, often gives them more time to continue to make things worse. Making things better this way also leads people at-large to believe they no longer need to take steps back away from disaster.

If you’re new to Pine - the watch and phone are Open Hardware devices for people who are want to help build that future of open hardware. As a coder, I think this is a good thing. I have several but I wouldn’t give one to a family member, just yet. Pine itself is about open hardware - but that process happens over a large time when smart people do good work. By comparison, Linux has been around 35 years.

I have a pinephone, and it has hardware on/off switches for mic, wireless, camera. my bet would be so will the pine time pro.

“Scientists synthesize nutrients Bees no longer get because humans destroyed all the flowers, and we think this is a net good.”

don’t believe it. ms is in for the long game.

… and liars lie.

…The problem isn’t what Bamboo might decide to do or not decide to do. It’s that they have broad power to do what they want, have demonstrated that already, and whatever they decide, the majority of people who _already bought their product, will just have to accept.

…or a tool that will tell you what you can’t print or materials you’re not allowed to use

… and then tell you that you can’t make it print better on your own … or faster on your own… but sell you a subscription to do the same thing.

and a tool you don’t have to throw away when the evil minions who made it tell you that you have to.

devils.

In any problem, every solution that works is a solution, but not every solution is of equal value. In math we use the word "Elegant : Characterised by minimalism and intuitiveness while preserving exactness and precision. " To describe solutions that work well, are concise, and don’t add pain.

Jigsaw puzzle analogy: If you have a puzzle with one piece missing, there are at least a hundred things you can use that will fill that space … sawdust, sand, play-doh, cement, but the most elegant solution, is the puzzle piece made to go there.

With tech, its just more complex- we don’t create solutions in a vacuum ( a world by themselves ), they have to exist and mesh with a preexisting world. We call those limits constraints. And the problem with tech is that often the people who create the technology ignore (don’t care much about) the constraints.

Inventor: Can we do xyz with cameras? Society: And not let them be used for evil? Inventor: Not my problem.

Its easy to solve problems: the cat is sick. kill the cat. people: No that’s awful. inventor: but it did solve the cat problem.

Solving problems in a way that meshes well with the world is not easy. And our inventors are at the moment, shortsighted and greedy.