I am a Linux fanboy and I totally agree that I am almost always near a plug and don't need that kind of battery life.
But when I can go for days on my work Macbook without charging (and I am a developer, so I do compile stuff), I kinda wish I could have that on Linux, too.
And again, I don't need it. Just like I don't need a fast Internet connection, but well... :-).
> What I honestly find more baffling is that they thought the Vision Pro would sell well.
Those monopolies seem so scared to "miss the next smartphone" that they invest heavily in whatever their competitors do. Everybody was running after VR/AR headsets, now everybody is running after AI.
They see the others run somewhere, they run in that direction. Just in case.
Note that Google Pixel hardware is just fine and not evil, and they're looking at a different vendor for the next version anyway, because Google is making it so the Pixel will only run approved OSes.
There used to be programs that would connect to multiple proprietary systems, like Pidgin. If we had this today we'd have one free-software app for WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram (and some used in other countries, like IIRC Zangi?). However, the social and regulatory environment changed - now whoever made that app could expect to be charged with a crime.
I don't have a definitive opinion on such messaging apps. I like that it bridges between different services, trying to free the users from the lock-in, but...
If I talk to someone on Signal today, I know that they are probably using the official Signal on the other side. With the guarantees that I know from Signal. Now what if half of the users of Signal were using a third-party app? How much can I trust this app?
Say Matrix has a bridge to Signal. I talk to someone over what looks like Signal from my end, but it goes to some third-party server that pretends to be Signal and then relays those messages to my friend on their Matrix client. As a Signal user, I cannot know it, but my conversation is not E2EE anymore. And it kind of defeats the point of using Signal entirely, doesn't it?
I guess my point is that in terms of security, there is value in making it possible to verify that both ends are using the official Signal app, by locking it as much as possible (e.g. with DRM-like technology). But of course it's annoying to be locked in. Even though I don't feel personally super locked into Signal: I could move to another similar app in a minute. But again people tend to be lazy and don't want to switch apps. It's a hard problem, I guess.
The European Commission has recently put WhatsApp under scrutiny in terms of the Digital Services Act, and forced them to open up allowing interoperability with other messaging applications.
Perhaps we'll see a return of apps like Pidgin soon.
But it doesn't make Signal bad. If Americans blindly process our messages without knowing what's inside, it's worse than not depending on them, but better than showing your private correspondence to somebody.
At least we don't seem to have things which are close by UX and security at the same time.
Simplex is fine, but still feels a bit raw.
Everything else is either untrustworthy because of the closed code or no e2e encryption or custom encryption schemes (WhatsApp, Telegram, any Asian messenger) or unusable from UX perspective (Tox, Matrix).
> "Thank you for your service" is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans -- service for what?
Well they are serving the US military, which is generally used for the benefit of the US people. Does not mean it's defending their territory.
Now to be fair, when the US people thanks their soldiers for their service, I don't think they are necessarily thankful for the US threatening to invade what used to be considered as allies (like Canada or Europe).
But I do agree that it is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans.
Well, it’s usually in the context of saying thanks, for things like nights and weekends away from family and friends on training deployments (or real ones), getting up early every morning, being the first one who has to take action if there is a crises and put their life at risk.
So usually it’s said even if the nation isn’t at war because it’s not an easy job. You’ll hear Americans say it to first responders, nurses, fire fighters, police officers, &c.
Idk why it’s being characterized as weird though instead of what it is which is just an aspect of our culture to say thanks to others who are doing jobs you perceive to be dangerous or difficult.
As a veteran of the US armed forces I hate it because I never know what to say…”thanks for your service’ …uh you’re welcome? But it comes from a good place. Though I try to remind folks that saying thanks isn’t enough, spend time and money helping others, vote, keep your community clean, have high standards for yourself and others, because otherwise your fellow citizens are doing all this for nothing.
That's kind of what I was trying to say: it comes from a good place.
But the "service" is more likely to be "invading another country" than "defending the US territory from an invasion", so when you are not a US citizen, it may feel odd.
Again, the US have threatened to invade quite a few democracies in the last year. Not sure how happy the people living there are about that "service"...
A more diplomatic way to say it would be that it is a different culture. And I would agree that Americans struggle to see that other countries have different cultures and different priorities.
If you believe that the goal in life is to live like an American, then obviously the best at doing that are... the Americans. The mistake is to not recognise that other people may have different beliefs.
> From an American perspective, it’s not the “rhetoric,” it’s just “noticing.”
Yes, but that does not go against the parent comment. When you grow up in it, you have it in you, and it's difficult to question it. If you ask Americans who live abroad, they often have a more nuanced perspective.
Apart from American finding it better in the US than everywhere else in the world (your "noticing"), there is this tendency from Americans to genuinely believe that the rest of the world agrees with that. "Everybody wants to live in the US because it is the best country in the world".
And this is very, very far from true. It's not just about money. The US have a lot of fossil energy, which is good for their economy, which is good for their military. The US is a big and rich country, which makes it powerful. But that is bad for the countries and people who are threatened by the US (and recently the US have been militarily threatening countries who until then were seeing the US as an ally or at least a friend), and it is bad for our survival (through the climate and biodiversity issues).
Tons of people outside of the US wouldn't want to live in the US, even if it meant earning more money. And on top of that, tons of people outside of the US feel threatened by the US, for good reasons.
> Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their constitution is some holy grail
There exists a concept of "American exceptionalism" [1], which describes this popular belief that the US are superior. It also probably goes with the fact that it is a very big country sharing one culture, and it is easy to not spend too much time looking at what other countries are doing.
> presidential democracies where presidents are elected by popular vote are a disaster
I would like to add France to the examples supporting your case: in the first round, Macron got less than 20% of the votes, and a non-negligible part of those was already trying to be "efficient". As in, the people would have voted for someone else, but they voted for Macron because it seemed more likely that he could win against Le Pen, the far-right candidate.
This means that less than 20% of the people (those who voted of course) wanted Macron. On his first day, more than 80% didn't want him. Still he behaves like if the French people wanted him.
> by having the parliament elect the president
An example I like is Switzerland: they don't have a president at all. They elect their parliament, and the parliament elects the Federal Council made of 7 people from the main parties.
What this means is that the executive power is a consensus by construction, and most of the people is represented (because the Federal Council is made of the major parties, which represent the majority of the people and go from left to right).
Feeling represented is very important: when the people does not feel represented, they take out to the street and protest. I don't think it happens as much in the countries you described (Germany, Italy) or Switzerland.
> It also probably goes with the fact that it is a very big country sharing one culture
Some Americans, even here on HN, genuinely believe that different states have different cultures in the same way different countries in Europe have different cultures cultures.
Sure, it's not incompatible. There is a European culture, it's just a question of granularity. And there are subcultures in countries (some countries are even divided between different languages).
Still, Americans from everywhere in the US have this tendency to genuinely believe that the whole world believes the US are the best country in the world. That seems like a cultural trait in the US.
> > Still he behaves like if the French people wanted him.
Well he's the closest to that benchmark no?
You can hardly regulate how emboldened a person feels, especially after having obtained such a big result.
He is the most liked person in France , as if you just take into consideration the raw number of people who like him and ignore those who dislike , his number would be higher than the everybody else.
It's always like that with elections, once the polls are closed and the votes counted someone will have a mandate and a mandate is determined by number of preferences expressed. Those who stayed home or the raw number of "dislikes" doesn't count.
A thing that would somewhat diminish the power of the elected person is an election where just 15-20% of the population who has the right to vote decided to cast their vote
> This means that less than 20% of the people (those who voted of course) wanted Macron. On his first day, more than 80% didn't want him.
That’s not true. “I want someone else more than X” isn’t the same as “I don’t want X”. That’s the advantage of Approval voting and Ranked Choice voting—you can make those things clear.
If you look at the situation in France, I think it's pretty damn obvious that the people don't feel represented by their government.
My point was not to nitpick on the numbers, but rather to say that having a president elected by the people and having as much executive power as the president has in France doesn't seem to work really well. As opposed to countries that enforce a consensus.
Not the OP, but IMO as soon as a company becomes successful, the leadership becomes focused on making money and not making a good product.
Sometimes making a decent product is part of making money, but that's never a motivation in itself. We have enough examples showing that if it makes more money to enshittify (and usually it does), then they will gladly enshittify.
I wouldn't say it's just the smart speaker industry.
But when I can go for days on my work Macbook without charging (and I am a developer, so I do compile stuff), I kinda wish I could have that on Linux, too.
And again, I don't need it. Just like I don't need a fast Internet connection, but well... :-).
reply