For everything on that list, I'd say that if you figure out how to run software of your choice on them the manufacturer shouldn't be able to legally stop you. (And specifically, the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA are terrible).
Phones get a lot of attention in this regard because they've replaced a large amount of PC usage, so locking them down has the effect of substantially reducing computing freedom.
> I'd say that if you figure out how to run software of your choice on them the manufacturer shouldn't be able to legally stop you.
That's already the case. The manufacturer can't come after you for anything you do to your device. They can:
1. Set up their terms of service so that things you do to alter the device are grounds for blocking your access to cloud/connected services that they host on their infrastructure
2. Attempt to make it difficult to run software of your choice.
3. Use legal means to combat specific methods of redistributing tools to other people that compromise things they do in number 2.
See https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-defense-of-the-amyloid-h... for an IMO compelling argument that amyloid really is the underlying cause. The theory is that amyloid buildup causes misfolded tau proteins which cause the cognitive damage. So reducing amyloid in people already suffering from Alzheimer's doesn't do much because they already have excessive tau; at best it might slow down the progression.
If successfull it could slow progression, and with better detection eventually greatly reduce the impact. Of course the whole thing could not happen, but i don't think we can say it will not happen right now.
It was mobile. The mobile ecosystem has always been user-hostile and built around the exploitation of the customer rather than serving the customer.
Right. It was infuriating when those of us criticizing the iPhone's restrictions were told "it's just a phone, who cares", when it was clear that mobile computing was going to take over quickly.
How is they worked out for PC users since the 80s?
Just to be clear, are you claiming that we would be better off if PC hardware and OS vendors had the level of control that smartphone vendors do today?
For almost every user - yes. If apps had to run in a strict sandbox it would be better for most users. Where it would make you jump through an incredible number of hoops or even install “developer editions” of operating systems.
You really can’t trust developers to do the right thing - even major developers like Zoom (the secret web server) , Facebook (the VPN that trashed usage actoss apps on iOS) and Google (convincing consumers to install corporate certificates to track usages on iOS).
Even more to the point, you read about some app installed outside of the Google Play store that’s malware - including the official side loaded version of FortNite…
This mostly confirms that it's exactly as bad as we thought. The only clarification is that building from source and installing via adb will continue to be allowed. For now.
"I don't know if UBI would take people out of the workforce, but it would probably take me out of the workforce."
A realistic UBI would be $10-15k/year, which means a crappy apartment and/or roommates and no luxuries. There's probably a margin where some people who want to do FIRE would be able to retire slightly earlier, but I can't see many people abandoning median or better paying jobs.
And reality is even worse because of the inevitable cognitive decline. It's astounding to me that there's a mainstream position that we shouldn't try to mitigate the effects of aging because evil rich people would benefit.
Phones get a lot of attention in this regard because they've replaced a large amount of PC usage, so locking them down has the effect of substantially reducing computing freedom.