I’d love to see some of that disinflation you’re talking about. From my perspective, luxuries have gotten cheaper while basic necessities like food, housing, and medicine have become dramatically more expensive across the board.
More and more it’s seeming that the “societal benefits” from the last fifty years of progress have largely been concentrated at the top.
There are a thousand medicines that have experienced literally infinite deflation over 50 years: not available at any price to having a finite price. GLP-1s, Trikefta, Mavyret, Checkpoint inhibitors to name just a few recent blockbusters. People complain about insulin prices, but the insulin from 50 years ago costs 25-50 $/mo (https://www.walmart.com/cp/relion-insulin/8418641), it's the new stuff that wasn't available 50 years ago that's more expensive.
Spending on food as a percent of income has declined significantly (~30%) over the past 50 years: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-expenditure-share-fa.... The decline has flatlined over the past ~20 years, but at least some of that is affluence meaning we choose to eat out instead of cooking at home.
> There are a thousand medicines that have experienced literally infinite deflation over 50 years
There are always individual counterexamples. And yet as a whole the cost of healthcare has exploded.
> at least some of that is affluence meaning we choose to eat out instead of cooking at home
A lot of that is poverty, not affluence. People working two jobs and living in food deserts aren’t cooking a lot of meals at home. It’s expensive being poor.
Since about the late 1500s, a bushel of wheat has cost within an order of magnitude of £1. By contrast, in the late 1500's a farmhand's wage was 1 pound + room and board.
Right now it's £5.60, but that says more about the decline of the British Pound than an increase in the price of wheat.
Massive food price deflation has been one of the wonders of the modern world. Hopefully the last few years were only a small blip on this overall trend.
There were several revolutions, major wars and genocides in between 1500 and now. We would like to not have to go through similar events to get things back again.
"It might get better in 500 years" is not exactly comforting thought.
Health care, housing, and education are the drivers of the cost of living / wage crisis. Wheat is not. Furthermore, you know this. Why did you choose to steer the conversation away from the problem?
They listed food, medicine, and housing. The latter two have massively inflated and are creating the problem. The former is not. Why did you choose to steer the conversation away from the important ones and towards the unimportant ones?
Wow you are exhausting. Someone asked about disinflation in basic necessities, they responded with a clear example in one of the necessities listed. Are you saying food is unimportant? Why are you incapable of accepting that disinflation has occurred in some cases, largely due to technological advancements? No one is talking about disinflation in medicine or housing because it hasn’t happened. It has with food. No one is trying to steer anything other than you.
Expectations have also increased. Friend from a middle class family grew up with 4 siblings in a 75m2 apartment. You'd get raised eyebrows for that today.
Cheap food is still cheap. If some doomsday scenario ever comes along, I'll be forever sorry to not have stocked up on 6 years worth of calories that now cost less than a monthly salary. World market prices per metric ton: wheat like $300, rice $500.
But that's not mutually exclusive with absurd levels of wealth concentration.
Doesn't include foods, but it certainly punctures the "That family isn't aaactually in financial trouble, they have a refrigerator and a phone and a TV" statements from certain pundits. (A class of people who are often disconnected from the average person's budgeting situation.)
>basic necessities like food, housing, and medicine have become dramatically more expensive across the board.
they haven't. In the early 1900s an American household spent roughly 50% of its income on food. And mind you food didn't mean an exotic fruit you flew in from the other end of the world or pounds of meat per week.
Today an American household spends 9% of their income on food, the 'dramatic increase' may have bumped that up to 10% by some measures. The size of the average house of the average American family in the last half century has doubled while the family size has halved. In the 1960s 12% of households had AC access, today it's over 80%. Generics of basic medicines cost virtually nothing, you've just started to consume more sophisticated medicine over time.
If you're an ordinary guy you are already living in luxury, you just don't notice it because you kept moving the goalpost on what luxury is. Which isn't per se wrong but you ought to be at least aware of it
This is a tech demo until it actually ships. Actual engineering requires things like cost effectiveness, reliability, and reparability that are yet to be seen.
It’s not like this is the first time that Elon has overpromised and underdelivered.
It's a bold claim, but the amount of engineering effort that went into eg touchID is to be respected. Proton and Signal are important, but they're tiny in comparison.
Personally I don't deny those claims. I question their motive. Most people don't care much about anything except camera/microphone/location access, so why invest so much into engineering all of these solutions? Are they just morally superior to others? Or are they using the reputation they created for themselves to justify locking down their platforms? Because there are things only Apple can be trusted with?
They sell their own products to you and that’s all they care about. Google, Meta, Amazon and others want to collect a profile on you in order to target ads or more products to you.
With Apple, you are the customer. With others, you’re the product. It’s an easy differentiator for them, plain and simple.
It’s more of a fun anecdote, but people forget that there was once a plague of stolen Apple devices. Apple customers were frequently targeted by pickpockets, etc. because of the value of the devices. I have no evidence but I’ve always believed this was the root of the privacy focus - Apple could lock devices to biometrics and eliminate various workarounds, making stolen devices worthless, and the thefts evaporated practically overnight.
Phone theft is a growing problem again, but it’s still less common than it was because they need to get an unlocked device, and I don’t hear them targeting Apple in particular.
Apple has their own ads and personalization is enabled by default. Why not make it opt-in?
> They sell their own products to you and that’s all they care about.
You can also extend this to say that they want you to only buy their devices/services. If you have an iPhone then non-Apple smart watches are missing basic functionality such as replying to text messages. Force everyone to use Safari and limit it's functionality to force apps onto the App Store (30% cut!).
What's the claim here, that they are doing nefarious things that are undetectable? Because we know that this is probably the most scrutinized tech company on the planet, and we know that they've been caught and penalized for errors in the past.
Do you have any evidence to present, or is this pure FUD?
Having spent a lot of time in the open source world, I'm aware of the concept that I can never know for sure if I can't see the code. (And even if I could, that wouldn't tell us with certainly how that the data that code creates/captures is used by the people using it.)
But I do think that, in general, Apple tends to be the least-bad actor among its mainstream competitors: its primary business model does not depend on harvesting and selling data, and it has made this value proposition a part of its marketing, and people high up in the company have spoken about ways that they personally value it. And, for any story about ways in which Apple has failed here, there are certainly twice as many for any other company they compete with.
I mean, step back: Who cares more about my privacy - Apple or Google? Apple or Roku? Can anyone seriously argue the latter for either?
> I'm only asking if people put faith in Apples claims because they're, well, Apple, or do we _know_ their claims are valid.
If we _know_, then there would be no need for faith. Given the lack of options and the lack of certainty, people must place their faith somewhere (or take on a lot of technical burden to roll their own); given everything I've seen, it's more reasonable to place faith in Apple than basically anyone else in "Big Tech" in this regard.
(But again: if there's a product out there that is very similar to Apple TV in every way except that it is more private: please tell me what that product is. I'd be thrilled to consider it.)
HN hates when people are “just asking questions” but haven’t bothered to make any attempt whatsoever to answer those questions.
Yes, Apple has actually put work into designing, building, and shipping secure enclaves. Yes, they have put a gargantuan amount of work into PCC to uphold the claims they make about its privacy. Yes, they employ differential privacy. Yes, they have shipped a feature that enables privacy-conscious users to be the only ones to hold the keys to their iCloud account. And on and on and on. Nothing will ever be enough for you.
You aren’t asking these questions in good faith. If you were, you’d have your answers already.
> HN hates when people are “just asking questions” but haven’t bothered to make any attempt whatsoever to answer those questions.
I have and don't see much evidence at all except a bunch of influencers saying Apple is tops in privacy.
Apple has plenty of default settings gaps that allow THEM to collect your data. They capitulate in certain markets. And who knows what Trump made them do?
You don’t like the answer you got, so you ignore it. Again, you’re not asking in good faith. The fact that Apple has actually done these things is widely agreed upon by privacy and security experts, and there is essentially no evidence that contradicts it.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
HN is countless different people with the full range of views on most topics. “It” doesn't hate (or love) any one thing, and these kinds of comments insinuating that it is one entity with one view are so lame. Please observe the guidelines if you want to participate here.
They invited security researchers to inspect their implementation of Private Cloud Compute. I expect there’d be a news story worth a good amount of traffic if they said it and didn’t allow people to do so. That there has been no such story suggests that there hasn’t been scandal.
It’s paranoid lunacy to ignore the irrefutable, demonstrable work that they’ve done to minimize the data they can ever collect or access while conveniently ignoring the miserable track record of every one of their competitors, and to ascribe intentions to them that are in direct conflict to every intentional action they’ve taken in at least the past decade.
You can't install an app on an Apple phone without telling Apple, and you can't get your location on an Apple phone without sending that location to Apple. None of their competitors have this problem.
> You can't install an app on an Apple phone without telling Apple
This is a funny one because users need to opt-in to sharing app install analytics with app developers. You don't get to opt-out of sharing it with Apple, even if you're installing apps from a third-party app store!
You will never silence the paranoid lunatics who come out in droves whenever Apple is discussed.
The only standard they will accept is absolute perfection. It doesn’t matter all of the drastic steps they’ve taken to ensure that past mistakes are never made again or that their hands are tied when governments make demands of them in the future. It doesn’t matter that they’re demonstrably orders of magnitude better than everyone else.
> The only standard they will accept is absolute perfection.
Only for internet comment purposes. I’ve found that these same jabronis actually tend to run crappy and wildly unsafe home rolled kludges, for themselves.
Followed by some congressional subcommittee making a demand from another Federal entity for an explanation by a firm date. Under threat of making the exact same demand again if they don't answer it satisfactorily.
IIRC, it is possible to get anywhere in the observable universe in one human lifetime assuming 1g of constant acceleration.
This does not permit you to slow down and halt at your target, which greatly increases travel times.
It is also effectively a one-way ticket for anything other than objects in our immediate stellar neighborhood. If you turned around and returned to Earth after getting to an object 1,000ly away—still well within our own arm of the galaxy—at least 2,000 years will have passed on Earth. It’s probable that no civilization you know of would still exist, nor would anyone be able to understand your language.
This isn’t even beginning to address the problem of running into stray atoms at 99.99…% of the speed of light. Or god forbid a handful of stray molecules. We also haven’t discussed the real elephant in the room which is the sheer amount of energy required to accelerate a human and human life support systems at 1g for several decades.
For the sake of pedantry, there are things in the observable universe which are increasing in distance from us by more than 1 light year per year. This means it's impossible to reach them unless the universe's rate of expansion changes. I think the Hubble volume is the region theoretically reachable; limiting acceleration to 1g would limit you to a slightly smaller region (only a tiny bit smaller, I think).
> nor would anyone be able to understand your language.
Greek and Latin are still understood. I don't know if the Chinese spoken today resembles Chinese from 2000 years ago, but maybe some of the written language would be understandable. Both Hebrew and Tamil are comprehensible that far back, and farther. Arabic goes nearly that far back.
Of course, that's six languages out of... how many do we speak?
Nerds specifically kept the archaic forms alive, but they'd also tell you that Latin and ancient Greek were not static for their whole existence (Attic != Homeric != Koine), and modern Greek is somewhat different from what is taught as "ancient" Greek.
Treat Latin and (ancient) Greek like you would Quenya or Esperanto.
If this were to happen with English, I'd expect us to keep Chaucer, Shakespeare, and enough to understand Victorian literature, but it's anyone's guess if modern English would survive at all.
Arabic… kinda? It has an international standard form, but from what I've been told the language also comes with local dialects which can be difficult to mutually comprehend (though this is also the same with English just by going from central London to Sheffield).
Problem is carrying the fuel (say we mastered nuclear fusion) that lets us accelerate with 1g for a longer time would use more energy than is available in our solar system.
Also, how much fuel do you need to bring along to accelerate a human and life support system and the whole craft including fuel, for a lifetime? Is it larger than a planet?
Actually, even something as primitive as a NSWR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket) can reach a good percentage of the speed of light after basically processing a comet for fuel. From the Wikipedia article:
"The design and calculations discussed above are using 20%-enriched uranium salts. However, it would be plausible to use another design which could achieve much higher exhaust velocities (4,725 km/s) and use a 30,000-tonne ice comet along with 7,500 tonnes of highly enriched uranium salts to propel a 300-tonne spacecraft up to 7.62% of the speed of light and potentially arrive at Alpha Centauri after a 60-year journey."
Sure, not 99% the speed of light or continuous 1 g acceleration but IMHO good enough for an oversized nuclear squirt gun.
Still, this is many, many orders of magnitude short of what’s being discussed. Essentially the forefront of technology could get us to just barely speed past our nearest neighbor in one human lifespan.
That's why we need to find a globular cluster with metal-rich planets, and take a generation ship over there.
Sure, a thousand generations will live and die along the way, but once we get over there, you've got stars every 0.1 ly or so, and with very plausible future tech, you could navigate between them in a few years. You could set up a proper starfaring, interplanetary civilization, with tradeships either going back and forth between two neighboring systems, or winding on long, never-repeating routes, visiting a dozen or so star systems in a human life.
(Most globular clusters appear to be old and metal-poor, and we haven't found a lot of planets there, and this only works if you find a globular cluster where ~every star can support a colony.)
> Sure, a thousand generations will live and die along the way, but once we get over there[...]
Unless you're planning on forcing those thousand generations to live in inhumane conditions (e.g. force a static culture), that should probably be "if we get over there". I'd be very surprised if, after 1000 generations, the chance for arrival is > 50%.
It takes only one generation to decide not to go along, be that by changing course, or by not reproducing enough, or internal warfare, ...
Sure there will always be some people who want to explore for exploration’s sake. But a generation ship leaving a garden of Eden we’re quite literally built for in order for our children’s grand^(1000)children to terraform a rock half a galaxy away in order to have a different mix of resources?
That’s a hard sell for the first generation, to say nothing of those who come after.
I would expect indoctrination something like what keeps alignment among devout religious practitioners would be forced to emerge. The alternative is extinction on a spaceship hurtling into the vastness of space.
I suspect education on that ship would look a lot different than it does on Earth.
That would mean we'd send them off with highly limited knowledge specifically designed to keep them docile, and an automated dictatorship that keeps the system rigid without leaving room for cultural development.
At best that's slavery, at worst it's reducing those 1000 generations to cattle.
I think it highly depends how big you make the thing &indeed what are the living conditions. If the people living on the thing can go one with their life withou much hardship they might not mind - even here on Earth most people just go on with their life and are happy.
Yeah, right we are 300 hundred years from the target but & 500 years on the way but so what ? You go for somo zero-g polo, do some cooking and pottery classes with firends, maybe learn machining so you can help with ship maintenance and so on.
It is the same on Earth - you go on with your life knowing you will propabably not live long enough to see some far future projects to be complete, like the final form of the Hagia Sophia Catthedral or Half Life 3 release. And thats mostly fine ?
Even with enough space and great living conditions, there will be greedy people who will try to gain power by gating resources. There will be factions forming, there will be conflict, and fighting. You need too many people for all to feel like one cohesive social unit for 1000 generations, humans just aren't built that way.
And that's just conflict. What if an early generation decides to target a planet that's less useful re/ metals etc., but that's much better suited for human life? How can you guarantee they won't decide to change course as a gift to their descendants, without draconian measures against such ideas?
> Also as for changing course - that is in many cases impossible, at least unless you want to make it 100% certain that you will die alone in the coldness of space. Just too much energy needed to signficantly change the trajectory & starts, at least in our part of the Galaxy, being too far apart.
Sure, the later generations wouldn't have that choice, but the first few definitely would. You need to bring a ton of fuel anyway to slow down, and 1000 generations is plenty of time to increase fuel efficiency a little. So a minor change e.g. at generation 5 seems very much doable, unless you have concrete examples that prove otherwise.
> It is the same on Earth - you go on with your life knowing you will propabably not live long enough to see some far future projects to be complete, like the final form of the Hagia Sophia Catthedral or Half Life 3 release. And thats mostly fine ?
I'm not forced to live my entire life working towards the Hagia Sophia or HL3, with the choice to do otherwise being taken away from myself AND from 1000 generations of my descendants.
If I was on that ship, I'd vote to blow it up, just so those responsible won't get away with it.
Yep, that ship would be a powder keg waiting for one missed ration to go off, see [1]. Hell, if the internet(?) goes down for a week that might be enough to cause a violent uprising. Actually, even if everything goes right and everyone is happy dying on the ship for no real reason, something will go wrong, it is just human nature.
The Hagia Sophia or the Sagrada Família took more then a lifetime to build but they were usable for their intended purpose, long before they were finished.
Re: changing course, as long as your generation ship accelerates for more than one human lifespan, your future generations of involuntary colonists aren't going to have a lot of options besides going along with it. The choice wouldn't so much be "keep going or veer off and colonize a closer star system" as it would be "keep going for another 800 generations or veer off and colonize a closer star system in another 80 generations". I mean, there's probably no way to stop them from making that choice, but it's hard to see anyone caring whether their nth-great-grandchildren die with one or ten millennia left on the trip.
If the ship accelerates for the first 100 generations, the 2nd generation likely still has every chance to target a different planet. I don't know which generation would be the last, but I'd need to see actual math to believe that it's strictly only the first generation.
One more consideration is targeting data. Do you even have another target or the sensors to find one ? The means of detection for a suitable planet or even just a good solar system, where you build a bunch of habitats might require huge telescope arrays or even something like a special telescope that uses the Sun as a gravity lens source.
Might be out of reach for even a massive generation ship.
Then you have a natural upper bound on the amount of amenities etc, because if you provide too much, 1000 generations can probably use it to try and find another target.
I'm sure you can keep making the situation more and more specific, but that's not going to increase your chances, or make the whole thing morally acceptable.
Also as for changing course - that is in many cases impossible, at least unless you want to make it 100% certain that you will die alone in the coldness of space. Just too much energy needed to signficantly change the trajectory & starts, at least in our part of the Galaxy, being too far apart.
Yeah, but why. It's not like you could redirect it enough that you'd land somewhere in your lifetime. It'd just be changing where the ship ended up in 10, or 100, or 1000 generations.
The point of sending them off to a carefully selected globular cluster would already be to give them a better life.
I'm not saying someone won't convince everyone on board that a silver future for their Nth-great-grandchildren worth derailing the golden future of their 10Nth-great-grandchildren (especially if it looks like the generation ship won't last 10N more generations), but from my POV sitting on a couch that isn't on a generation ship (well, not something traditionally defined as a generation ship), it doesn't feel like something you'd get everyone all fired up over.
You're proposing to enslave a thousand generations to ship them off to dead worlds rich in certain resources. I have no idea how you imagine their life to be once they arrive, but I can promise you that you're not giving the first 2-5k generations a better life, you're forcing them into a horrible future. It's deeply concerning that you don't seem to understand this.
Since we're already in the realm of far out engineering, you could get the energy from a laser beam from a source orbiting the sun. Your spaceship would have some kind of array to capture the energy beam.
This gives you energy, but I'm not sure how to turn that into velocity. Presumably you'd want some kind of ion beam emitter on board to propel your craft forward. Halfway through the journey, you'd turn the ion beam around to decelerate as you approach your destination.
In the Arthur C Clarke novel Songs of Distant Earth, spacecraft pushed huge blocks of ice ahead of them to absorb stray interstellar dust.
As you get going further and faster, this energy redshifts further and further making it less and less useful. Also there’s of course the problem of focusing a laser with that amount of energy tightly enough on an object increasingly far away.
Not sure if my interpretation here makes any sense but here it is.
Due to relativity time slows down on the ship, the laser is still hitting the ship, how would the measurement of the energy received from the laser be perceived on the ship, from the ships perspective a 1000 years worth of energy arrives within a few decades. My head hurts thing about this. If you had a ship that could instantly jump to 0.5c travelling away from earth and we beamed a message using a laser at say 1Gb/s, how would the bandwidth appear to the ship?
You have it backwards. The further and faster the ship goes, the less energy is received. The energy collected over a day will be spread over a week, a month, a year, a decade, etc.
GP has it backwards too. For 1g of acceleration, none of the beam that is produced after a year will ever reach the accelerating spacecraft. You only need to run it for a year.
For 1g of acceleration, none of the light produced after 1 year will ever reach the spacecraft. You only have to operate the power source for a year, but you only get a year of source power spread across an infinity of time.
Another option is to visit as many massive objects as possible on the way there, doing gravitational slingshots until you're half way, and then gravitational brakes on the approach. Of course now you're taking detours, but since certain amounts of fuel make the trip impossible, any workaround at all is an improvement. What's an extra few thousand years between friends?
First, what “many objects along the way”? There are basically none. To do this requires many detours that significantly increase the distance you’re having to travel.
Second, the faster you’re going, the less useful a gravitational slingshot is because you spend less time in the object’s gravity well.
It’s a fun and useful trick within our solar system, but I don’t think the physics plays out well for interstellar travel.
Stars is what I meant. Although upon further thought I think you're right. I guess the intervening stars are unlikely to be moving at helpful velocities for such a game of pinball, metric expansion being what it is.
Slingshots require very specific conditions and configurations of orbiting bodies that won't really work in deep space - all the Kuiper Belt/Oort Cloud bodiees are far too small and too far away to be usable.
But assume for example that you don't care about how long it is going to take (you are an immortal cyborg, an upload living in the computer or a popsicle in hibernation & the AI is driving. Then you can just "island hop" between Kuiper Belt/Oort Cloud objects, never gaining any high % of the speed of light but always having the next body in your sights, not farther than a few decades or a couple hundred years of flight at most.
You reach the body, refuel, repair, maybe upgrade and then off you go, to the next one. And eventually, you might be at you destination, with a fully fueled and repaired ship. It might just take like 20000 years for start to finish, but hey, you can use it for something productive like learning to play Go or something. :)
You're right, I overlooked some important slingshot requirements. As for the longevity, I figure the ship can build a facility for growing settlers when it arrives. With no humans on board it can sustain heavier accelerations.
In this setting this was first done when a bunch of immortal vyborgs was on a colony ship, about hundred years from arrival but there was a probe with a matter printer already in the destination. So their got the idea to send the probe both blueprints for a humanoid body printer as well as their mind backups. That got their colony going quite a bit faster but might have resulted in some funny/awkward moments once they met in person later. :)
Presumably you could also run this withou a mind upload and let he individual develop normally.
Less if we just send some eggs and sperm and spin up a human on arrival. We can construct a larger life support system out of things we find at the destination.
Or better yet, send some cancer cells so they can replicate during the journey, then switch from cancer mode to gamete mode for the final generation. That way they're fresh when you need them. You're gonna want DNA repair happening continuously, rather than all at once upon a thaw.
If I recall correctly, it's about the size of a large asteroid (assuming 100% conversion to energy). It's a long time since I worked the problem, though, so I could remember wrong.
Not necessary. A cell (with a nucleus) has all the DNA required. You just need to have a viable system to build up a human from it. I think right now this is not possible, but this will be solved eventually. The question is, though: do future humans really want to do that?
Don’t be so sure. I hate to draw the comparison but raising a child in an artificial womb is probably at least as difficult as growing chicken wings in a sterile environment. A startup founder that wanted to grow meat pivoted to lab grown egg whites, in his words in order to grow a cube of solid meat any bigger than a centimeter cubed, you could not keep it sterile, it is too attractive of a growth medium. In the case of a chicken, it’s like the rest of the bird is needed to provide an immune system so the meat doesn’t spoil.
Mothers provide more than a growth vat to their children, not to mention the immunities passed on in breast milk.
To birth a child in a sterile vat, they would likely need to be kept in a bubble the rest of their lives too.
This is using the fact that at 1g acceleration, one will quickly approach the speed of light relative to its starting rest frame and time dilation will give the astronaut a _very long_ life relative to that frame.
> The Washington Post indicated that "98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft"
> Apple: "We have never heard of PRISM" "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order."
Yeah, they said the same thing about giving out all your push notifications to the government, before they were caught and admitted they had to keep it secret due to NDAs. Seriously, why do people trust billion dollar corporations to look after the little guy?
"In this case, the federal government prohibited us from sharing any information," the company said in a statement. "Now that this method has become public we are updating our transparency reporting to detail these kinds of requests."
To whatever extent they’ve been required to comply by the legal authority of the government they operate under, it’s also abundantly clear that they’ve repeatedly gone above and beyond in removing their own ability to comply with such things in the future.
Yes they are happy to make a song and dance about not letting authorities into individual phones, the publicity definitely helps them out on that front. However none of it matters because the government already have probes in all their servers, as proved by Edward Snowden, so its game over before you start.
Do you understand what NDAs are? It doesnt seem so because you keep quoting Apple while they have been proven to be under NDAs in the past, so how can you trust anything they say in the future?
Its ok, you carry on trusting old Uncle Apple to look after you. I am not trying to convince you of anything. However I am entitled to have my opinion that it is hypocritical to criticise tracking from one company but turn a blind eye to the same thing from another.
I have clarified my opinion many times now, feel free to have the last word.
If you presume that we have a technologically omnipotent government that can defeat secure enclaves, secure exclaves, private cloud compute, e2e encryption, etc., then there’s no point in even pretending to play the game you’re trying to. Even open source software has to run on chips that you have to trust haven’t been backdoored by Uncle Sam. Even open source chips have to be trusted to have been manufactured faithfully.
If you presume the government isn’t technologically all-capable, then technical measures can limit and even defeat the observability that even a wildly tyrannical government has into your computing devices. This mindset is both infinitely more useful than yours and more reflective of the world we actually live in. The government now mostly has to rely on 0-day exploits that they hold close to their chest until a target sufficiently warrants burning it.
Your paranoia is beyond hysterical and it presumes that these companies are gleefully giving out our data when it is extremely clear that nothing could be further from the truth. Again, Apple has more than any company proven a track record of tying their own hands when it comes to complying to these kinds of requests. In the absence of perfect options, I’ll happily go with the good ones.
They didn’t not respond. They unambiguously said they are not participating or even aware of the existence of such a program. That goes a hell of a lot further, and would have opened them up to a hell of a lot of issues if it was false.
More and more it’s seeming that the “societal benefits” from the last fifty years of progress have largely been concentrated at the top.
reply