I actually disagree that a book is “problematic” because it touches, presents, includes etc. any topic that morally we disagree with. Not every book has to be a manifesto or a depiction for a moral and just society, which is why I find most of the arguments against HP to be weak (some points were listed in a sibling comment thread).

subjecting any popular series to close reading with an eye for affront is likely to show up its flaws

I am quite sure this is true for any book (especially fiction), in fact. Which is why I think it’s an activity that makes sense only to justify the pre-existing opinion about the book, rather than having a value in itself.

if you have the chance to pick it up second-hand I’d encourage you to see if you can finish it.

To be clear, I know that Dan Brown stuff is garbage. I just have seen people who I think never read a book in the previous 10 years read that one (in translation though, so who knows…). So the book must at least be interesting and intriguing to keep the attention of people who are not used to read. For me this means not fitting in the “terrible writing” category, but maybe we mean different things by that.

The DaVinci code sold 80 millions copies. The first HP book alone sold 120 millions, and the whole series 600 millions, being the most sold series of books.

Not only they are one order of magnitude apart, but I think they sold for different reasons.

I haven’t read Dan Brown’s stuff, but I also doubt it’s terribly written by the way. Books that capture the interest of a population more and more unused to read can be shallow, banal, inconsistent, whatever, but not terribly written. Casual readers can hardly finish a terribly written book. In any case, HP books are children’s books. Children or teenagers are not literary critics, it’s not about reading “great literature”, however you define that.

I also can’t help to notice the coincidence that all the HP critiques started appearing in the last years, when the author went bananas. A series this popular, which ended in 2007, and suddenly 15 years later people notice that it’s “terribly written”? This smells more to me of a damnatio memoriae than genuine critique.

Honestly, I read the books translated + I could not and still cannot relate with the issues that I often see raised against the book (like the way diversity is represented). Especially when I was a kid, those issues were so not in my mind that I would never ever flag as issues.

To make an example: for me as a kid, slavery was something that mostly had to do with the roman empire. The whole debacle about house elves etc. is completely disconnected from real societal probelsm, recent history etc. I have always rooted for the elves because that’s what I was pushed to do emotionally, but without really ever reflecting on slavery as a whole. I am picking this example because it’s one of the most used ones to critique the book.

In general I also believe that authors can build worlds that do not represent their views, I find a lot of the critique I have read a stretch and I am especially suspicious that most of these critiques started appearing recently. I believe people started with the thesis (she is an asshole) and then backtracked the analysis trying to find anything at all in the books that could support the conclusion (rather than viceversa).

Either way, all of this is relatively irrelevant. People can like or dislike books - especially fiction - freely. For me the book is mostly associated with a vibe of being young, thinking about those stories, relating with the characters etc., not with the actual books content. So it’s more about thinking back of childhood/past than appreciating the literary value.

I found it very fun, interesting and captivating when I read those books (that is, when I was maybe 13-16?). If it was “terribly written” it wouldn’t have made the success it did, and also the target audience is generally not made of literary critics.

So I don’t think there is much to judge, especially since many people’s good opinion on the story is based on their lived experience with it, from when they were younger etc. And you can’t erase that from your life because the author turned out to be an asshole 15 years later.

Yes, the whole discussion is around antitrust, and he thinks republicans have a chance to do better than democrats there. There is nothing to “bro” about, it’s pretty clear from the context. If he said any of that before the election, I could vaguely read an endorsement for single-issue voters. Saying republicans are better than democrats in fighting antitrust after Democrats shat their pants about it, doesn’t sound an endorsement to me.

The rest of this comment is out of topic. His focus (and his company focus) has always been on a specific political area. So there is no expectation that he would address the whole political scenario, when he was talking about that narrow area.

But he went out of his way to demonize the democratic party and somehow hold the Republicans up as the defenders of small business

So this is what bothers you? A completely legitimate critique of the democratic party? Well, I personally cannot care less, but you do you.

I see the issue as very simple: Him and his company work in the privacy space. Tech monopolies are a problem because captured people. Improving in this space is a win for privacy. Which is not something that is beneficial “in a vacuum”, it’s beneficial to all those vulnerable people that will be attacked by this government, or the next. he expressed optimism about the fact that republicans can do better than democrats here. Period. Naive, wrong, whatever. A legitimate opinion based on his reading of the last few years’ trend.

No endorsement, no “pledge loyalty”, nothing. Just a consideration. He also mentioned on his reddit account that ultimately actions will be what will count (as it is obvious). So to me this is legitimately a nothing burger. I cannot care less that people in US (and in many more places) live politics like a football game. I cannot care less that you or others got hurt because he criticized Democrats. They could and should do better, and then if the critique is unfair I will be there saying that he “goes out of his way” to criticize them. So far he clearly motivated his opinion with what Schumer did.

There are less than 10 companies that control almost the entire tech space. What “fewer choices”…?

Breaking up google would be already enough, which is what the focus was. All your comment sounds very fuzzy to me. Basically the whole antitrust thing is on google, if republicans break it up, great. Which " allies" are they going to bolster?

Republicans tech policy is motivated entirely by the fact that their racist and conspiratorial views were getting them banned on social media sites from 2015 - 2024

And i should care because…? Why should I care why republicans wanted to break up tech monopolies, if breaking monopolies is anyway something that I consider a positive change?

Breaking monopolies give people more choice. More choice (free) leads to hopefully people choosing more privacy conscious tools. More privacy means less data that can be handed over to doge, less data that ICE has to target minorities, etc.

then you either whole-heartedly agree that a group of criminals and wannabe dictators should be able to destroy any business that publishes speech against them, or you are extremely gullible.

Those are not the only 2 options. I am instead very happy that they will do the right thing for the wrong reason, and outside those monopolies more people will choose services that republicans have no power over. Moreover, your whole argument assumes someone is in US. I am sympathetic to the people in US, but tech monopolies are a global problem.

He didn’t endorse the republican party.

The fact that you inflate the meaning of that tweet to make it more meaningful than it is, doesn’t mean he did anything of the sort. The tweet happened after the election but before the government, and it was an endorsement of the antitrust appointee. He also expressed his opinion that republicans were more likely than democrats to fight big tech monopolies in the antitrust space. This is far from an endorsement.

It was also a completely unnecessary comment, in response to nothing.

It was in response to Trump’s tweet about the antitrust appointee. I would say quite relevant context for a tweet about the antitrust appointee.

It was unnecessary, true. Like every tweet. He expressed his unnecessary opinion, the same way we are doing now.

Andy praised Gail Slater publicly, and they even worked together.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2nz9v/on_politics_and_proton_a_message_from_andy/m7psmzx/

The premise is already wrong. There was no promise or loyalty, not even close.

In 4 years I have never (and will never) used any service from /e/. There is no vendor lock whatsoever. That’s fully optional.

Points 3, 4 and 5 in your list are moot IMHO.

Also

It takes a base level of understanding why you would buy a Fairphone

It doesn’t really. “Phone is repairable and X can help me”, “they pay the makers fair wages” are not really complex value propositions that require some (technical) understanding.

The point of /e/ and similar distributions is that you can buy a phone with it (average user will never reflash) and just have a phone that doesn’t use Google (it does, for the amount that doesn’t require you to do extra technical stuff and have a sane user experience at the same time).

That said, calyx seems a great alternative and so are iode. I think the advantages of one over the other (for my brief search) are quite small.

Gotcha, you are the classic person who is unnecessarily confrontational, but that dashes at any actual confrontation, because ultimately you have nothing to say. Your history shows this clearly.

We can all live without toxic people like you.

So your argument is repeating a cliché? OK.

I don’t need to convince you, but I explained my reasoning. Maybe make some practical examples, show some CVEs that - if left unpatched - severely impact the privacy (or the broader security) of the average users.

Also, as anybody who works in security knows, security is not a binary, and securing often means paying a price (in usability, in Euro, in comfort, in performance, whatever). In my mom’s threat model there is no the APT leveraging a 0 day to breach her worthless phone, there are opportunistic scammers who send her emails. There is also google and the like harvesting her data to sell her shit (hence a deGoogled phone with bootloader unlocked is more important than a Google phone with bootloader locked, for example).

In my threat model there might be some more resourceful attackers (because believe it or not, a financial org trusts me with securing their infra). However, as I also said, a much simpler and cheaper attack that recently has made the news is just to snatch the phone unlocked from my hands on the street, rather than exploiting an android CVE. This is why for example I have app pins for signal, email and everything that supports it, and I need to authenticate at every use. I also store all my TOTP on my yubikey, rather than keeping them on the phone (even with PIN), so my phone is not good as a 2FA device.

What you call blasé is actually just a way I personally assessed the risks and decided to invest accordingly. People whose threat model involve the bots who spam emails do not have to invest in security like if the NSA is after them. Updating android a month later is not going to be even a “low” risk for most people, especially if they adopt the much more important practice (IMHO) of not installing every shitty app under the sun. If you think otherwise, make concrete examples perhaps. Using a cliché is not really building your credibility here.

I definitely wait more than a week to update for example. The marginal security risk is completely irrelevant for me compared to the operational risk of a buggy update. N-1 is a common practice for updating software in fact, unless there is absolutely a great reason to upgrade.

Also, I want to be in your circle, because most people I know if the phone doesn’t update automatically they probably won’t even think of updating their phone (or their computer) at all.

For me the reason is simple, I don’t care about the advanced threats that would be mitigated by GrapheneOS enough to buy a pixel and migrate. I already own a FP3 and that’s what I am going to use until it breaks.

I might consider Graphene in the future, but having to buy a Google phone (even a used one) already pisses me off, compared to a FP (or similar). eOS also tries to be a “noob-friendly” distribution, that you can buy phones with and you never have to mess with the phones, which means people who don’t have the skills or don’t want to mess with their phones might trade the risk with ease of operation, and it might be the right choice for them.

Generally speaking privacy and security are related but not really linked to each other. Google services might be very secure, but a privacy nightmare for example. In this particular case, even more, because the chances that using a “googled” phone will mean data collection (I.e. privacy issues) are almost certain, while the risks we are talking about are much more niche and - as I elaborated on another comment - in my opinion not really in most people threat model.

I would like to hear your perspective instead, because I am not really into using authority arguments, but as a security engineer I believe to at least understand well the issue with security updates, vulnerabilities and exploits. So yes, I do think to know what I am talking about.

I am not dismissing it, I am saying that is not as big as you make it to be. Most users lag behind in updates anyway, besides using minimal and trusted applications, the outside exposure to exploitation is relatively small, for a device without a public address. I am not the one APTs are going to use the SMS no-click 0-day against.

Similarly for the bootloader issue. The kind of attacks mitigated by this are not in most people threat models. They just are not. As someone else wrote, it’s possible to relock the bootloader anyway with official builds (such as my FP3). But anyway, even for myself the chance that my phone gets modified by physical access without my knowledge is a fraction of a fraction compared to the chance that someone will snatch the phone in my hand while unlocked, for example (a recent pattern).

If these two issues are what prompts you to call a “security dumpster fire”, I would say we at least have very different risk perceptions.

FWIW, I have the FP3 for now more than 4 years. I have only replaced the battery 6 months ago. A case would have been extra waste (to produce the case itself) in my case, and probably will be trashed after as it might not fit the next phone.

No offense, but that’s not what a security dumpster fire is. Security updates are important, of course, but they are also not the biggest deal.

In fact, I bet that the vast majority of users (on Android or otherwise) are lagging way behind in updates anyway.

Maybe they are just getting started with learning programming, be kind.

Foregejo : codeberg = lemmy : blahaj.zone

Forgejo being a fork of gitea