zqps

At least Europe rarely uses WhatsApp for business purposes. It’s worse in Asia and South America where WhatsApp and Facebook literally are the internet, including the enterprise space.

And the reason it’s less the default in the US isn’t because people are so forward-thinking to use signal, but iOS being so uniquitous that people use iMessage.

People everywhere are just somewhat lazy and just don’t know better.

They can’t build them that cheaply. They don’t have the same scaling effects as the big brands, and they make an effort for sustainability which is a huge problem with cheap-ass phones.

93% after 1.5 years works just fine for most users who do not prioritize longevity or sustainability over convenience, unfortunately.

Don’t worry. They confirmed it’s highly effective with a third LLM.

It’s mostly to achieve higher IP ratings, and people with expensive phones also tend to pay for things like cloud storage upgrades and expensive bluetooth earbuds.

The people who internalize this would never engage with a chatbot in this way in the first place. To them this is another intelligence they’re conversing with, where you get what you need by following social decorum, and enforcing your will amounts to abuse.

This brings up the question if it’s only about size, or if e.g. dry cereal counts as “uncomfortable”.

The point isn’t to absolve people of making bad decisions, but that doesn’t mean the companies whose tools provide dangerous advice in a friendly and factual manner should be without accountability.

Consider that people in all possible situations and mental health conditions have access to these tools.

80% of the utterly ass things that Apple pushes on people are on iPhone. iOS is a purely consumer product, while macOS has a decent chunk of the prosumer market which has a lower tolerance for enshittification.

Yes. The top comment says Google Pay, not Google Play. The sandboxed play API has worked well for me personally.

Which would that be?

So in short, this question could have been used in all sorts of ways to provide an answer that clarified the commenter’s position.

I mean, in the way it was asked not really. It was explicitly asked, or rather condescendingly demanded, as a simple binary choice stripped of all context.

That’s not how you engage with someone when you actually want to get their take on a complex issue. That’s how you engage if you want to score an easy win for upvotes. And I for one am done with that kinda hostile “debate bro” culture / popularity contest that’s defined many subreddits over the years. It shuts down any chance for an actual exchange. So let’s not act surprised at the result.

Yeah it was asked in bad faith and framed in a manipulative way.

That’s not a good thing and should be called out, no matter if you disagree with the person it was directed at. It’s called integrity.

The question itself was a cheap gotcha. Shockingly, it’s not as simple as that as I’ve been pointing out. Which you’d acknowledge if you were arguing in good faith.

It’s unfortunate that any attempt to insert some nuance automatically makes me the enemy in your simplistic position on the matter. And now ego prevents you from backing off of this kind of thinking by any means, no matter what toxic and regressive conclusions it takes you to.

I didn’t say the people of South Korea are being subjugated. Not sure how I could have made clearer that these are two separate issues.

You also won’t find me defending NK. Not everything should devolve into tribalism and dunking on whatever we perceive as the other team. Which is exactly what I’m criticizing about this question and the way it was asked.

So prosperity for one people is worth any price to you?

There’s two issues. The one is that prosperity is already very ambiguous, and in the context of nations we usually default to easily measurable things like GDP. This doesn’t define human well-being which is actually not so easy to measure. Look at the US as the richest nation on earth for a stark example. The question was asked in this way and without this clarification for a reason.

But the bigger issue is that it’s just the wrong question to ask. Any definition of prosperity for one massive people can be built upon the cruel subjugation and exploitation of others. And that’s exactly what happened and continues to happen under the “former” global colonial powers, as well as aligned governments (which includes a lot of puppets). Hence US foreign policy. Celebrating this as a victory of capitalism is either clueless or outright malicious.

Yeah I guess you got me down to your level.

So now only the difference remains that I didn’t misconstrue your point on purpose to score a cheap dunk.

I said literally: it means absolutely nothing historically or ethically, or worse it typically means “aligned with imperialist hegemons”.

Do I need to explain to you what that means, or do you have a clue about South Korean history and US foreign policy?

What a pointlessly hostile and asshole way to make your point! Did it feel good? I’ll try to refrain from doing the same.

What “prosperity” means in this context is typically just amassed wealth and GDP, which says nothing about how well the population is actually doing.