![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Software shouldn’t be locked.
The manufacturer should stand by their products.
Products don’t need constant updates.
There is a point to repair.
Software shouldn’t be locked.
The manufacturer should stand by their products.
Products don’t need constant updates.
There is a point to repair.
I would starve without a job. (without welfare, in some countries, this is not enough)
There is an order of magnitude here. In a way, I’m being hyperbolic. But I do want to highlight the similarity between the two.
Sorry.
Directorship*
Functionally, they are the same.
I find it frustrating when people who are wrong, won’t change their minds.
I don’t expect people who are devoid of reasoning to get behind anyone except themselves. Someone, I’m not invested in at all.
With that being said, do you think it’s more reasonable to:
Actually blockaid during a protest and get arrested, preventing future activism?
Get media to spread an important message about some injustice, potentially gathering support for similar causes?
Which one would be more effective, and why?
I’d argue security updates are not needed too.
It depends on what the device is used for.
Most security concerns nowadays are from users giving easy access to nefarious people. Usually easy passwords that can be collected from social media.
I’d also argue that corps like Microsoft, Google, Apple etc, can have far more nefarious intentions than some random hacker. Even if it’s just data leaks. There is safety in a crowd. But when corps control the crowd… That’s more of a reason to raise security concerns.