Shiggy_

This comment is legitimately just "think of the children!?!!" with extra steps.

Simply add a setting to the phone for the technologically illiterate and/or young and old.

I can't even imagine how locked down and terrible the internet would be if we had this rhetoric around in the 90s.

> The United States uses its natural resources to wreak havoc on the world, why shouldn't countries gifted with Geography not push their advantage? Particularly when there is no world order

You can push an advantage, but the whole "no world order" issue will result in severe repercussions if you start to mess with the wrong people. This is not unique to America.

> US bombs anyone it wishes whenever it wants?

Oh please.

> Why should Iran play nice when all it got in return is US aggression?

Iran playing nice? Are you serious? You know that it's possible to criticize America while not backing a government that has killed at least 40K of its own citizens _this year_. Acting like Iran and its government are somehow passive in global conflicts is insane.

It's cringe when people deliberately choose to misunderstand Doctor vs MD.

Common vernacular is commonly wrong, we get it. Yes, you can be referred to as "Doctor" with a PhD in Physics, English, or History.

Guess what? If there was an emergency on a plane and the staff called out for a Doctor, and somebody with a PhD in structural engineering stood up, you'd be yelled at.

Disturbing. Serious lack of respect for the rights of the citizenry of the country to privacy.

> What is and isn't personal data is subjective, regardless what "truth" you believe you're sitting on

Ontological games are just that - games. Personal and public data is not an opinion, and it's not subjective.

I legitimately think that it's harder to have a coherent definition of a chair than to define personally-identifying vs anonymous data, and pretending otherwise is stupid.

Pretty much.

Any data that personally identifies information about an individual is personal data.

That is not an opinion. That is a fact. It's not public information, and anyone arguing that is categorically, provably, wrong.

The entire country of Sweden can collectively come together and decide that 1+1=3, and I would give that about as much thought as these semantic games around private and personal data.

Can't even figure out this forum but he's the best tech+product guy you will get lol

The impression that I get from this comment is the idea that society and culture moves "forward," whatever that means, and therefore stability is holding back society. Sure, there's short-term pain in collapse, but what rises from the ashes will be better than before.

This is absolutely not the case. It's more than likely that whatever rises out of the *hellscape* of a societal collapse will be worse than what was there before.

The collapse of Rome did not lead to a better Rome. It was hundreds of years of suffering and death. In fact, the stability of Rome is what allowed for it to reach its peak over hundreds of years - something that was undeniably good for its citizens.

The entire financial industry is based around unfair advantage.

Serious question: Why are you pretending that you don't know which god the western world is referring to in its legal documents?

The obvious answer here is "the one that you hate." Or, the Christian god of Abraham.

The preamble is not subtle: "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

Now, legally/philosophically speaking, the Canadian concept of free-speech is laughably weak, as is all Canadian rights. Specifically, section one clearly states that rights are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Effectively, if the government decides that you're "not reasonable," you have no rights.

The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God, where the idea is that the government is to uphold the existing divine rights afforded to all human beings, as opposed to the British system of which Canada (and the rest of the common-wealth is based off of) is a part of, where the government _grants_ the rights.

Another example of this is the British crown, in which authority is given by God. Many of the older cities derive their local authority in the same way. If I recall correctly, I believe that the city of London is so old that they actually mixed it up, and derive theirs from "time immemorial."

I would consider this a positive. I'm not interested in a company that wants to prevent you from using a tool that you're paying for.

The value of the internet is that people can share whatever they want, and use software how they want. This will mean that some people will abuse that. This is the tradeoff of a free society.

Oh, I agree that the way that the tariffs are currently being levied is embarrassing on a national scale. Also on the fact that meaningful economic change won't happen when these tariffs will disappear/re-appear at the drop of a hat.

It's also worth pointing out that while, yes, there is 50% tariff on Canadian goods, this only effects ~5% of imported goods, meaning 95% of the Canadian imports are unaffected by this nonsense.

It's also worth pointing out that some of these tariffs actually are being used to help build out US industry, like the CHIPS act.

I don't think that we disagree on anything here, haha