• 0 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • Imagine Saudi Arabia in 10 + years.

    With all the weapons that they have also purchased from USA, with all the mutual agreements.

    Them being a non human right country, which had abused its own powers. The alliance that it had formed with Iran and China, despite their crimes towards human rights, just as well. We’re in for a hell of a future to deal with, after biden flies away with his golden parachute that is - probably in a far far away land.

    And trump supporters lunatics are going to increasingly think that trump is the solution.

    To hell with them all. And the grand court; what’s it going to do ? Cave in to the masses demands ? It’s a great feat of them, all on its own, to be complicit to all the things that has transpired thus far in the years we have endured without as much voicing their opposition to all of that which is sought to be immoral and unethical by all standards of maintaining human-rights.


  • Back in the day, when the government of Japan banned samurai schools, and prohibited so many dangerous weapons, the samurai got angry and revolted.

    Those samurais, on the other hand, who worked closely with the government or had willingness (or had leverage by working with them), created their own “spiritual” schools, teaching aikido, kendo, and practices of spirituality, peace, and finding one’s own path in life.

    But now Japan thrives ever so lively. And yet, the government now carries all that stigma after the ages of samurais had passed; and for good reasons, because they do oppress people and judge them unjustly in courts.

    Perhaps the sword may have not been the answer, but it is certainly not the solution either to dismantle all, including the good and the bad, for there are the protectors of peace- the sword carriers, and those whom carry weapons and guns are no different.

    And there are those who are irresponsible and neglectful, and would drive opposition the opportunity for justifying radical changes. Then that radical change would be justified. Including the dismantling of weapons and their schools of thought.

    So is the case that had led to this women’s unfortunate circumstance.

    However, I will still carry the sword to death with me.






  • Imagine paying the same price for a car that lacks the technology of:

    • Smart screen

      • With heat resistant materials that are designed to resist high temperatures and still function properly (i.e in summer times)
      • With GPS features, and media access
    • But the screen still sucks because you can literally buy a magnet and stick your phone there, and still be able to do literally everything a smart screen car do.

    I mean id still buy it because I prefer cars that are not so impractical, but it’s a shame that it still costs practically the same.

    Conceptually, a smart screen sounds like a good idea, but the implementation is bad.












  • Yeah, so what ?

    Do you know how Gnu / Linux makes money ?

    At some point it is not about individuals but big corporations that need their services, and they buy them.

    They should have built their business model as per their financial requirements from the outset then, if that was the problem for them.

    But that should not justify or excuse them for doing things that are immoral and unethical.

    Sounds more like a greedy approach than anything.

    If I was an ethical and moral CEO of Google, and sought it costly to maintain such a huge infrastructure for millions of people around the world that are using their services freely, I would have made measures to shut them down or close them, instead of maliciously inserting things and harvesting stuff from them.

    Then if they have such data, then they should be held accountable and responsible in the future for any damages as a result of their work processes, and that happened many times historically speaking. And any crime that happens, they either offer evidence or be complicit to hiding fugitives. Which alone is a process that will cost them alot, just having to do it, and cooperate w them any governmental party.

    If I get in trouble in the future, I sure would love to have Google assist me in proving that I was innocent, by providing evidence through data that it has. But would they be willing to do so?

    This is very interesting in a way to think about, as it shows where their weakness lies in their business model, and where they are strong.

    But it goes to show how monopolistic they are, and, if anything, neglectful to basic human rights. Where I’m from, privacy is a human right. So there are many dimensions to take into consideration here - but ultimately they are only a small aspect of this whole complex dimension to boot.

    Ultimately, it is their fault for not setting up their business model to meet up with their own financial requirements. And not ours.



  • So then we shall propose to let them in at our own terms ?

    That’s quite reasonable to me, and less radical in my humble opinion.

    But I also see how one may arrive at such a conclusion, as all parties may not be as welling to accept such terms and conditions, or even be able to make such terms and conditions enforceable.

    One instance may accept favours from meta, and then it spreads out uncontrollably… And then … Its gets more complex.

    Perhaps the safest option is to limit their present shares to a maximum of 40% in our servers. That is, they cannot be allowed to have more than a set amount of API exposure to the feeds - and they must allow us to reciprocate, like wise, by being able to have access to theirs by more than 40%. The value of assets can surely be established and estimated par costs of maintenance and OA, etc…