kempathonnodge
About
- Username
- kempathonnodge
- Joined
- Visits
- 11
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 54
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 17
Reactions
-
How we ended up with the 'Pregnant Man' Emoji
A well written article, thanks for taking the time to write this.Let’s hope that those disparaging of this subject don’t have children who play with Lego. I dread to think what they’ll do if their kids make a character that isn’t heteronormative…
The human race has been successful because of our ability to empathise and care for our communities and fellow humans. Most of the harm caused has occurred when we suppress our care and start fighting based on ideological paradigms. Most wars are the result of Religious conflict, for example.Outrage does not cause change, outrage causes conflict. It’s the ability for others to care and have empathy, which causes healthy, lasting change.Take a breath all, there is enough suffering that needs our energy. An emoji, as I see it, depicting a social construct of a gender being pregnant is a lovely thing that shows some of us care about other human beings, whether technical coincidence or not.
-
FAA forced 5G rollout delays despite no proof of harm, claim trade bodies
You can’t prove a negative, and what exactly how that wording can be interpreted is infinite.darkvader said:The FAA does their job, wants to be sure planes don't fall out of the sky.The telcos whine about it.The standard in aviation isn't "proof of harm" - it's "as close as possible to proof that there is no harm". And if there's a chance, even a small chance, that these frequencies used for cell phone data is going to interfere with older altimeters (I'm assuming radar altimeters, I doubt pressure altimeters could be affected) then the FAA did exactly what they're supposed to do - put the brakes on and demand testing.The telcos need to calm down. 5G isn't a big deal for the vast majority of people, not having planes fall out of the sky is.Planes falling out of the sky is not a rational consideration here - slight interferrance would have backup systems in place and, as reported, has not been demonstrated.Rolling out 5G is important to users, as data usage is increasing, and each new iteration of networks increases capacity and reduces the chance of having slow speeds. Blocking the technology when there is almost no risk is ridiculous.If the FAA was in the game of no risk, they wouldn’t fly planes or allow Boeing planes in the sky… there is evidence of harm there!
-
Apple rejecting apps that collect data for 'device fingerprinting'
I'm wary of this ideas that 'there is more to it than we consumers realise'. Apple have a proven track record of making decisions that benefit users, sometimes these don't benefit them (Siri being not so great), and sometimes the benefit isn't clear to the lay user - giving up floppy disks, CD, firewire, moving to usb-c, keeping Lighting connectors... . I hear a lot the argument that there must be something going on, but in 45 years this just hasn't been shown to be true. This simply isn't the case for other big tech firms.CheeseFreeze said:It’s a tough balance. Apple here is doing this for consumer privacy reasons, however on a corporate level it’s also a strategy to weaken competition or at least influence them heavily out of self-interest. It’s a slippery slope.
And it’s also one more example of how they are using their market dominance to decide what is acceptable and not (hence anti-trust cases).
Lastly, Apple has proven to be hypocrites themselves when dealing with China and Russia where they gladly bend their own rules and values to sell more products and services. They want to have it both ways.
So although I like what they do out of personal interest (consumer privacy), on a corporate level I am concerned about this behavior, because there is more to it than we consumers realize.
The China/Russia argument is not as simple as that. You can't make change unless you are in the game, to simply not work with the Chinese or Russians would not benefit anyone. Apple also has to abide by US law, which not everyone agrees with either!
It shouldn't be their place to push the privacy drive, but in the absence of governments that understand the issue, let alone that are willing to challenge 'big tech', this is really the only option. Watch how many states will be lobbied to fight on the behalf of other big tech companies to challenge these 'pro-consumer laws', instead of embracing and regulating effectively in line with what we know is a better way.
