My life has definitely gotten better since I started doing this. Local restaurants are almost universally better anyways

Wow… that sounds really bad for the economy

Despite the privacy concerns, Microsoft says that the Recall index remains local and private on-device, encrypted in a way that is linked to a particular user’s account.

Just like how Microsoft domain-bound emails were stored locally on machines running Outlook, right? Or how purchasing and downloading music, movies, and video games meant that we owned them, right?

I don’t believe for a fucking second that this “feature” will remain locally encrypted forever. Fuck Microsoft, fuck the AI bubble.

“Don’t be evil!

…

wait, you say you’ll pay me to be evil? Well fuck that changes everything!”

Thank goodness the boat was there to protect the man from the goat

Yes, of course there are people posting videos, but the vast majority of communication on the internet is via text by a long shot. My point isn’t that someone is right or wrong in what they infer from or relate to in the writing, but my point is that the prevalence of unreviewed and unedited text in everyday life nowadays thanks to the internet has further increased the average size of the gap between an author’s intent and the meaning that a reader infers from it. What I’m trying to say is that the wider the gap between intended meaning and inferred meaning gets, the more toxic the relationship between any given person and the public at large gets in general. Text-based communication makes it easy for that gap to be wide. Unreviewed text-based communication just widens that gap. Reading a lot of un-reviewed text based communication from other people makes that gap even wider. That’s what I mean by corrosive.

You’re right, but I’m confident enough in saying that most people don’t film videos or record themselves saying what they want to in order to engage online most of the time. I mean to say that dropping a written comment on a Facebook, Reddit, Lemmy, Xitter, etc. post makes it far more easy for people to try to infer meaning where there is none. I’m convinced that sort of indirection that the internet has made a much more common element in human discourse has greatly influenced the increase in political polarization.

For example, if someone posts “#ACAB,”someone who was shot by a cop for stealing a loaf of bread is likely to relate to it and assume that OP completely understands their plight, but someone whose parent or sibling is a cop will likely assume that OP is prejudiced and presumptive when in actuality OP was just posting their gut reaction to the movie 21 Bridges.

I meant to make a point about how the internet has made unedited written conversation far more prevalent in everyday life. Edited and peer-reviewed writing is different from the majority of what people read and write on a daily basis (including myself, because obviously my initial comment could’ve used more time in the oven)

I guess I didn’t include everything I ought to have to make my point (which honestly is evidence for my point).

Books are generally speaking written over long periods of time and go through plenty of editing and revision while internet comments and posts, especially from dumbasses like me, are not.

Kind of just more evidence that reducing human conversation into writing is reducing human communication to at most a handful of perceivable factors instead of the countless ways in which humans (and animals in general) communicate.

In other words, if it wasn’t already obvious the internet is corrosive to humanity.

Probably the most outdated thing about it was how it was clearly written and developed for the male gaze. I don’t even mean the sex cards, I mean how Triss and Shani are purely there as objects of attraction with hardly any personality aside from being sexy women.

I think you’re just proving that it is entirely subjective. If it was objectively an inferior experience, I’m confident they wouldn’t be nearly as popular as they are. I get that there are plenty of people who believe firmly that total control over their own electronics is the best experience, and I can understand that. I enjoy tinkering in a Linux machine as much as any Lemmy user. However the vast majority of people do not want to be overwhelmed with the amount of ways they can configure their devices to the point that they can’t discern one choice from another. And my iPhone does exactly what I need it to just as much as my Android did.

Yeah, marketing is definitely part of it. They make their devices sound, look, and appear like they’re some sort of luxury experience. But there’s definitely something extremely smooth about the way Apple’s suite of software works with their hardware, and how their hardware works with each other, and I appreciate that for what it is.

The crux of this suit seems to be that the DOJ believes that Apple needs to make its hardware fair to everyone that can develop on it, and make its software fair to all possible hardware that can run it, which is particularly interesting because Apple’s main product seems to be a pleasant and easy user experience that cuts through the physical barriers of the pieces of hardware it sells. And part of that user experience is the sense of security that is supposed to come with knowing that Apple is (more or less) able to decide who is allowed to access important, secure elements of their hardware.

On the software side of things, I don’t fully understand why or how the DOJ could force Apple to develop better integration support for cross-vendor hardware usage? Why do they need to go the extra mile to make an Apple Watch work well with an Android phone? Because the DOJ says so? I mean, sure I guess that would be better for everyone but it’s a weird thing to require.

Objectively superior? Superior user experience is entirely subjective, but that is the main selling point of almost everything Apple has done in the last 17 years

I imagine their surprise came across kind of like this

“what is this? I bought a xbox card! what is this? i don’t even know what that is!”

This is legitimately the plot of DOOM and DOOM 2, just replace the dog with a bunny and God with all of Hell’s inhabitants.

Tim Apple presenting it like it’s a portal [to a new era of mobile computing] is exactly what would happen lol

Okay, I don’t think I was trying to convince anyone. I’m not on Apple’s side here, but I don’t see how less governmental regulation could possibly be worse for Apple.

I bet Captain Universe Peter Parker is excited he finally caught something bigger than a thief

I agree it’s a minor irritation by most standards, but when all that’s on the line is making jokes about someone based on their choice of phone there’s no reason not to pressure someone else. As to sources, I see it happen all the time. I used to be the one who upset people, then I bought an iPhone and almost everyone I texted got really excited to see the color of our chat change. I’ve also seen countless memes about green chat bubbles and people ruining group chats because of their Androids. I’m not sure you’re going to get much more reliable sources than anecdotal ones for something like this.

“Early Access Hardware” is a new one lol