68 karma · joined October 30, 2013
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8551072
If you have sources of evidence that can sufficiently contradict my own and show that Gates has been an overall net gain instead of an overall net drain for society, I'd sincerely like to review it.
Instead of simply downvoting me and nothing more, I would've expected other posters here to challenge my sources of evidence here at Hacker News.
Frankly, I thought most of Hackers News was better than this. I hope I'm proven right about Hacker News over time and some start backing up their downvotes with some of their own sources of evidence, etc. that disputes my own instead of simply downvoting a post they don't agree with.
When you said, "he may have played loose with the rules" I didn't take that to mean, "he played loose with the rules".
But, I misunderstood you and I apologize.
>if you read my message thinking I was worshiping him
I apologize if I misrepresented your opinion. However, I would hope that if you read back your glowing post in regards to Bill Gates one might get the impression you may not be aware of all the wrongs he did as CEO as well.
>you're greatly exaggerating the wrongs he did as CEO.
Can't say I agree with you there when one critically looks at the sources of evidence that supports my supposition:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8551072
>he isn't the second coming of the devil either.
No, he's not. Nor is he Hitler, etc. I apologize if within my short response to you I gave you the impression that I thought he was a spawn of Satan. I'm a bit more of a complex thinker than that, I think. But, I suppose I deserve that since I errantly implied you "worship" Gates. :D
Then again, I tend to get compared to Satan once I criticize Bill Gates in most forums, so I'll own it instead.
>Take a breath.
Thank you, I will. :)
>Any source on that?
Here's some:
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/...
http://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-charitable-...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation
--- (Some homework: Calculate an estimate of all the harm to all these businesses and, by proxy, consumers above)
http://lists.essential.org/1998/info-policy-notes/msg00047.h... (It goes way back)
http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html (It keeps going)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=304701 (download the PDF there)
--- Observe the many examples here:
http://thismatter.com/articles/microsoft.htm#tq1
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=241988 (download the PDF there)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=502822 (download the PDF there)
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0907/6205050a.html (FORBES mag)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_l...
--- History of Anticompetitive behavior and consumer harm:
http://unctad.org/en/Docs/ditcclp20082_en.pdf
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072487933/466... (a very enlightening read)
http://www.cptech.org/ms/harm.html
http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/part1.html
http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/table.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1016972/nvidia-blam...
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9901/11/microrise.idg/
http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/your-loss-their-gain-32...
http://www.fool.com/cashking/1998/cashkingport981118.htm
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/21/61725...
http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/ca_sues_ms.html
--- Microsoft entered into anticompetitive and exclusionary agreements with OLSs and ISPs:
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#vii
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The effects of anti-competitive business practices on developing countries and their development prospects:
http://unctad.org/en/Docs/ditcclp20082_en.pdf
The Gates Foundation investments include companies that worsen poverty in developing countries, pollute heavily and supports pharmaceutical companies that don’t sell into the developing world.
Also, he’s doing it wrong with malaria.
By pouring most contributions into the fight against such high-profile killers, Gates is diverting staff from basic care. This form of “brain drain”, pulls away trained staff from children and those suffering from other common killers.
The focus on a few diseases has shortchanged basic needs such as nutrition and transportation. Gates-funded vaccination programs have instructed caregivers to ignore – even discourage patients from discussing – ailments that the vaccinations cannot prevent.
The Gates Foundation harms global health by diverting resources from other important local health care services. The foundation diverts medical professionals from other parts of developing nations’ health care systems; the health care systems’ ability to provide care diminishes (except in the area the foundation funds) and the charities do more harm than good. (This has been backed up by several prominent investigations, please look it up)
The Gates Foundation is also undermining public education and exerts too much influence over public education policy without being accountable to voters or tax payers. The reforms include closing neighborhood schools in favor of privately run charter schools, forcing standardized tests which have been proven to harm education (just ask teachers, educational professionals, etc.).
What should we learn from this?
It’s better to have decentralized sources of charity coming from many sources instead of one collective source. Unfortunately, Gates helped to hinder and in many cases completely detroy entities that would have not only given vastly more to charity, but would have also done it in a far more diversified and effective manner.
It’s very ironic.
Bill Gate’s monopoly helped usher in an era of rampant malware for decades because of the lack of platform diversity.
http://cryptome.org/cyberinsecurity.htm
All of this above together cost average consumers and businesses worldwide in the trillions (many of whom were able to give less to charity because of this). Many businesses and consumers were rail-roaded into using subpar products and services via his unethical, anti-competitive, monopolistic business practices.
The sick irony: He’s now using those same ill-gotten profits (that hurts the world in the past, present and future with a lack of diversification) and is giving it to the developing world in an ironically non-diversified manner and hurting them as well.
As Bill Gates was with Microsoft, he’s too arrogant to look at the big picture externalities.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Typical question I get is to please source small businesses and individuals giving more to charity.
It's not terribly easy to find good sources because Google's search algorithms (which are written basically by editors, by the way) will give precedence to all the multiple, corporate media Public Relations that merely offers deceiving articles about the "Top 10 corporations who give to charity", etc.
For example, this corporatist Public Relations piece:
http://money.msn.com/investing/companies-giving-the-most-to-...
While you're there at that Public Relations piece above disguised as a news article, please read the informative first comment at the bottom about "how to lie with statistics” as well.
Here's the reality with vital externalities at play that a lot of the corporate media would like us all to ignore:
-- Corporate giving accounts for just 5% of the total giving in 2013.
Yes, you read that correctly, just FIVE PERCENT and that's not just an anomaly for 2013. It's always very low compared to everyone else. The vast amount of all charity is given by small businesses and (especially) lower income individuals. Not just a few huge corporations and some billionaires like Gates.
What corporations and billionaires like Bill Gates really do is spend a vast amount of money on Public Relations to advertise the fact that they give money to charity. It creates the public illusion that major corporations and people like Gates give the lion's share of money to charity when that's completely and utterly untrue. It's a classic example of manufacturing consent.
Of course, this information tends to give people cognitive dissonance since they've been basically indoctrinated via Public Relations to believe otherwise: http://i.imgur.com/MFdTOaq.jpg
But, here's the reality:
http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-gi...
And this here.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6S23Fn6...
Then, of course, there's this:
Why Don’t Corporations Give to Charity?
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/08/corp...
And finally, this:
Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>I rather enjoyed using his products.
So do I, (at least some of Microsoft's products, anyway) including the positive influence MS has had on other products created by other companies. As I said in my first post in this thread above, Gates has also provided a lot of good in the world with his efforts in business and charity, there's no denying that and he should be commended for it (as he already is quite vociferously all over the place). But, I'm not here to parrot his Public Relations that's already disseminated nearly everywhere online and offline. Just stab in any general direction if you want to know about what a great a guy he is. I'm here to talk about his net effect on society and I am therefore presenting the side of Gates that a lot of the corporate media (and otherwise) would like to forget and whitewash in the face of his Public Relations, power and control.
However, povertycure.org seems to be embraced by quite a few neo-libertarians, neo-cons and the specific page you linked to is high on platitudes and fairly low on facts, in my opinion.
Between the strange mix of a libertarian worship of a unicorn "free market" combined with religious overtones, they strike me as a somewhat confused group with quite a few ulterior motives running in the background.
For example, this charmer from povertycure.org's board:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/oct/21/executive-pa...
That's not to say I think povertycure.org is all bad and I disagree with everything they all say and do, but I take them collectively with a grain of salt. For example, I think Michael Fairbanks has some very smart ideas here and there, but I'm still wary of anyone that embraces a "free market" blanket solution to so many issues as well.
As far as the crisis in Europe goes, I think the damage that austerity measures have caused aren't given enough credence by a lot of the corporate media for obvious reasons.
http://www.social-europe.eu/2014/09/europes-austerity-disast...
It's ignored too much, in my opinion.
edit: spelling
If you're implying this new exploit and perhaps the other high-profile malware issues in more recents years is indicative of hacker interest due to surging Mac OS market share, I'm not sure that's entirely correct.
Outside of Apple iOS (mobile), Mac OS X (desktops and laptops) market share hasn't risen relatively that much over the past decade or so. And, in recent times, even the peak is only a few percentage points higher than it's been for many years.
When Mac OS market share was lower back in its Mac OS 9 days, there were far more widespread, problematic malware issues (viruses, trojans, etc.) that were propagating fairly well in the wild (by Apple's standards). That scenario proves that hackers were interested in Mac OS devices even when the Mac OS market share was lower than it is today.
Since the 90's, Macs have hovered around approximately 1 in 10 (give or take) of all computers in the United States with a customer base of a predominately higher income demographic. In other words, one may very well get more money out of a smaller subset of Mac users than a larger group of typical Windows users. Therefore, Macs have always been a target for a subset of hackers that, er... "specialize" in that kind of scenario.
In other words, while Mac OS market share may play some minor role in hacker interest in the platform overall in recent times, there hasn't been a huge surge in market share that would account for some radically increased hacker interest.
The reason malware was drastically reduced on the Mac platform since it switched from OS 9 to OS X (based upon a flavor of UNIX) was because of the superior security Mac OS X afforded the platform compared to Mac OS 9. That's why even as market share gradually climbed, overall Mac OS malware dropped dramatically for most of the past decade until more recent years.
I think the relatively small increase in malware (compared to Mac OS 9) for Mac OS X in the last few years is due to the fact that over time hackers are more likely to find exploits the longer they poke and prod at an OS. Also, over time, Apple programmers are increasingly likely to make mistakes here and there as time and piles of code goes on.
And, perhaps Apple is slipping in quality in regards to security for various reasons since their resources have been somewhat distracted with iOS devices in more recent years. Plus, over time, the amount of hackers, hacking skills, knowledge and tools have been increasing and improving quite drastically worldwide especially more so in recent years.
On top of those issues, there's been more attention brought to Apple via an iOS halo effect from iPads and iPhones that perhaps plays into more hacker interest in the Mac OS. I also suspect that the abundance of high-profile Apple commercials over the years has perhaps influenced some hacker perceptions that the Mac OS platform is more ubiquitous than it really is. And, the icing on the cake is perhaps more disgruntled hackers and hacktivists who are increasingly disillusioned or even hostile with the Apple brand for various reasons over the years.
But, as far as purely Mac OS X market share goes, there really hasn't been that large of an uptick to prod properly educated hackers to take much more interest than they did a few years ago or even a decade ago overall based upon market share alone.
He --may-- have? Let's not whitewash history. He not only very much played loose with the rules, he outright broke the rules and trampled upon laws that caused far-reaching net damage to society in the process.
Like yourself and most others, I'm certainly pleased that Gates has decided to give back a small portion of his overall plunder from society, but it also shouldn't act as a public relations whitewash that erases his past history. His charity doesn't simply erase his overall negative impacts upon society that runs easily into the trillions and also took away from charity by proxy and directly in the process as well for decades.
We should teach future generations to give to charity, but in the process we shouldn't also instruct future generations that the way Gates amassed his ridiculous amount of money and power was acceptable and good for society overall.
Despite what they and their lackeys would have many of us believe, society prospers without megalomaniacal billionaires. Billionaires reach that ridiculous, megalomaniacal status by pushing the externalities produced via their business growth upon the rest of society instead of paying it themselves.
Once externalities are accounted for, there are very few organic, ethical ways to acquire and hoard that kind of wealth without stunting the rest of society in insidious ways. And, by the time one "gives it away", all the greater damage has already been done in the meantime.
We don't need them. For example, the overwhelming majority of charity comes from small businesses and lower income individuals. The same individuals and small businesses that are drastically hurt and destroyed by the business practices of people like Gates and other billionaires.
Keep in mind, large corporations and people like Bill Gates give only a tiny percentage of overall charity, but they (and their lackeys) spend vastly more on telling everyone about it through various public relations channels, etc. and that's why it distorts public perception on who really gives the lion's share to charity overall.
Again, I'm very happy Gates is giving to charity, but let's not whitewash his overall net impact against society in the process. He accomplished some great good for society with his business and now his charity as well. But, for us to ignore all the harm he's caused with his past business practices over those decades isn't fair to society and it's a horrible lesson for future generations that may think they should emulate the methodologies billionaires like him use to acquire and hoard enough wealth to reach that "status".
There's much more to the story of Bill Gates and his dire issues with externalities (and charity issues as well) that we shouldn't ignore in our haste to worship him and/or as someone else in this thread did... apply some sort of sainthood.
edits: spelling/grammar
Sure they are. I am product Gawd.
> Again, you keep saying that you have lots of exercise activities you know about and enjoy, and that the challenge you've had is overwork. Lots of other people don't have lots of exercise activities they enjoy, but measurement, and the feedback and sense of accomplishment from improving their numbers is something that they get positive feelings from which help counteract the negative feelings from an unpleasant activity that doesn't produce immediate tangible results
I see your point.
> although, for people whose challenge is overwork, measurement can be an early signal that an imbalance is occurring that might be visible before tangible harm, so it could be useful for people whose situation is more like yours
So a fitness app could use tracking to alert me when I need to take a break from work and repeatedly prod me to get exercise? I'd smash it and then I'd need an anger management app to help me cope with my fitness app. ;)
I've been overweight at times when I overwork. Especially after I was in a situation where I was a caregiver for a sick loved one for some years. Even after that spell of time, I lost weight fairly quickly (and healthily) by mountain biking. I've lost weight by exercising via having fun on a mountain bike, hiking, climbing, kayaking, surfing, etc. and eating less (and somewhat healthier) and drinking more water.
I guess I just don't see how a fitness app would have improved my situation. Again, I'm not dissing on those that use them, but I personally don't get it.
I'm still curious after your response. How would a fitness app and device helped me?
>Lots of people don't enjoy exercise, especially people trying to establish a pattern with it that haven't done so yet.
Maybe it's because they set it up like a chore with a computing device instead of doing it for fun and health as a side benefit?
I'm only half-kidding about that...
I personally can't stand sitting inside and getting exercise on some rat wheel in a gym. If it's hot, I bring lots of water and dress appropriately for the weather. If it's cold, I bundle up. I enjoy the challenge that the elements bring to the table outdoors. I also like using my brain trying to navigate trails, etc. instead of doing repetitious, boring (to me) brain-dead indoor exercise machines like treadmills, etc.
I dunno, maybe if people worried less about their fitness tracking devices, trying to treat exercise like work and instead just have more fun, they'd be more apt to exercise?
I wouldn't enjoy exercise either if I treated it like work.
>I think you are presenting a false dichotomy.
Perhaps I am for others. For me personally, I just don't see the enjoyment of meticulously tracking my heart rate, etc. while I'm flying down some trails, hiking my bike up rocks, etc. I know my heart is working because it's pounding with joy (and sometimes fear) and that's enough for me. Or, if someone spots a bear I sure as heck don't need a fitness app to let me know my heart is ticking. ;)
Again, I know what works for me certainly doesn't work for everyone, but as hard as I try, I just don't get the fitness apps and devices being very conducive to enjoyable exercise. Just seems like another distraction from getting busy and having fun in the process.
The only device I like to bring is a little shuffle for music and I often turn that off so I can hear the sounds of nature while I'm out there. A fancy pants fitness device that alerts me that my heart rate has reached some kind of "optimum" zone or whatever just seems like a mechanical killjoy to an otherwise organic, almost tribal/ animalistic/sensual experience getting down and dirty with nature.
Again, this is just me. If other find enjoyment in fitness apps and devices that run them, then more power to them! :D
Who knows, maybe someone can make a good enough argument for me to start using them someday if/when I have health issues, etc. down the road.
If one doesn't have health issues and/or not a professional athlete - why would one want to keep track of fitness so closely?
I just go out and get exercise and enjoy myself and all this fitness app stuff seems like a distraction. Plus, I really don't want to destroy expensive stuff while I'm mountain biking out here in CO just to see my heartbeat.
Is it just an obsessive hobby done out of curiosity or is there some reason I should use a fitness app instead of simply enjoying myself on my bike, hiking, etc. and focusing on that instead?
Again, nothing against those who use these apps and devices, I guess I just don't understand the obsession.
Apple should have issued a recall and replacement program for this early 2011 MacBook Pro GPU defect a long while ago and now it's come to this.
I don't think Steve Jobs would call the impending lawsuit bad luck, he'd call it bad karma.
As in a widespread, prevalent, worldwide pandemic that also affects the United States in a widespread manner? Dead people in the streets in the USA? It doesn't appear that way to me because ebola doesn't appear to be incredibly easy to transmit compared to other "big one" infectious diseases humanity has dealt with in the past.
For example, if it was vastly contagious, I'd think someone in Thomas Eric Duncan's extended family would have caught it. Out of all those exposed, none of them caught it including his fiancé.
And this was a guy apparently sent home from the hospital showing symptoms with a 103 degree temperature, etc. - witnesses also said he was vomiting profusely "all over the place" (even outdoors in front of his housing complex).
No doubt this is a serious, devastating issue and may very well affect millions in developing countries if no improvement in intervention and community behavior occurs. Properly educating health care providers and the public is paramount. I also think it's likely to spread somewhat in the USA, but not anywhere near compared to developing countries.
I think it's overhyped in the media and that's good - and bad. The good is the overhype will lead to more media exposure and perhaps preventative measures being demanded by the public to better prevent the spread.
Reminds me a little of the Y2K bug. There was a media hyped freakout over it, so a lot of people became aware of the issue, took precautions/actions and prevented the worst case scenarios from happening. New Years Day for 2000 went mostly without a hitch for the general public. The "overhype" in that case worked in our favor to some extent and prodded people to take action due to so much media exposure.
However, the bad from the CNN-esque overhype in this particular case is that irrational fear may very well get in the way of proper responses and cause ebola to spread more widely in developing countries than it would with a more balanced and less hysterical approach. So, I do think the overhype may very well be a double-edged sword in that regard.
I'm somewhat surprised, but not shocked, that a health care worker caught it from Duncan in Texas even while (apparently) wearing protection, etc. - but I also have a feeling some protocol, somewhere was missed. I would hope it's all on hospital surveillance video and people are checking the footage very carefully to see if they can spot any lapses in said protocols. If they aren't using comprehensive surveillance of people working with ebola in American hospitals - then they really need to start, in my opinion.
I've seen plenty of nurses in American hospitals go from room to room tracking potential contaminants on the bottoms of their shoes because they often don't wear disposable booties. Meanwhile, they inevitably drop items on the potentially contaminated floors and often don't replace or even just clean the items. Especially those pulse oximeters that easily fall off fingers onto the floor and also have cords that often touch the floor as well and end up being touched one way or another afterwards without being cleaned/replaced. There's also an issue where nurses and doctors simply don't wash their hands enough.
After witnessing this, I'm not shocked someone caught ebola in that Texas hospital. Like I said, I strongly suspect some protocol was missed even if the administrators initially claim all protocols were properly followed.
In my opinion, this is a very serious issue and our hospitals have needed a wake-up call for a long time to better prevent transmission of infectious diseases in hospitals. But, I'm not seeing this leading to a "big one" within the USA. If anything, I think it may be beneficial in finally getting more American hospitals to finally clean up their act and help to prevent less scary infectious diseases down the road.
Good breakdown and comparisons with other contagious diseases here:
http://www.webmd.com/news/20140806/ebola-virus-how-contagiou...
I just looked at him funny and told him about the invasive bugs in the area that've been ravaging the trees and how he's managed to make his own situation worse by getting rid of the very animals that eat insects like that.
He just walked away stuped in cognitive dissonance.
That said, I do enjoy watching videos people put up that show squirrels trying to get into bird feeders and getting flung off and stuff. It's interesting and funny watching squirrels trying to defeat these things.
It would be a much more time consuming, expensive and complex test, but I think I'd trust the results much more than what I'm seeing here.
https://discussions.apple.com/message/26643423?tstart=0#2664...
There's also media worldwide that's covering the issue. Apple needs to stop ignoring this defect and offer a recall and replacement program before his escalates further.
They've lost a lot of trust and respect from people who haven't forgotten the nightmare Rice helped bring to America and the world that continues to ruin, compromise and endanger lives to this day.
Bringing someone like her on board who also championed warrantless wiretapping and suspicionless spying on all Americans had to be one of the most bizarre moves possible for a cloud hosting company like Dropbox. It makes me wonder what other moves this company has made in the background regarding privacy that we still don't know about.
Apology accepted.
There are clearly misogynistic comments there including saying that all American women are "entitled, selfish babies", etc.
Unless you're here to defend those kind of comments, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Also, if you were the one who downvoted my comment, thanks for that other knee-jerk reaction made in ignorance as well.
They should have waited until there was more of a breakthrough in battery storage (to make it far slimmer) and also the ability to give it some little bit of extra power capacity through heat off of one's wrist along with an ability to grab solar energy combined off the watch face.
Also, it really, really needed to be able to work standalone without a tether to the iPhone, IMO.
This was just too soon. The battery technology isn't there quite yet. This didn't blow my mind in practicality and usability, it just looks like another vanity watch someone wears in a vapid attempt to impress others.
I'm underwhelmed.
Just because we didn't actually all die in nuclear war doesn't mean people's fears were unfounded. That's a bit of a false argument you're making there.
Reagan nearly brought us to nuclear war. If anything, that proved their fears to be correct.
>They really seem disappointed that it never happened.
I can't speak for "they", but in my case I'm really "disappointed" that he brought us so close to nuclear war.
And while we're making false arguments here... If you're content with coming close to nuclear armageddon, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. :D
You may have read the article, but I don't think you read it very throughly. They didn't put all the blame on Reagan alone. That's incorrect. They mentioned Soviet culpability within the article.
via page two:
"An argument can be made, of course, that it was not the Reagan Administration alone that was responsible for either the confrontational Soviet-American relations of the time or the acceleration of the nuclear arms race. The two adversaries had been locked eyeball-to-eyeball since the waning days of the Second World War in 1945. The USSR had spent much of the 1970s stirring up trouble and expanding its influence throughout the "Third World." They had deployed troops to Afghanistan to save their tottering client government in Kabul on Christmas Day 1979. They had pursued several rounds of nuclear buildups of their own (and in fact had deployed medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe first). Soviet leaders, of course, always claimed that their international behavior was defensive in nature -- undertaken because we were out to get them. And we always claimed that our international behavior was defensive in nature -- undertaken because they were out to get us. "
Considering the other parts you missed previously, I would suggest you re-read the article I linked to if you want to form a more valid opinion of it.
I say this as an Android user who prefers Android over iOS for various reasons (Firefox and its Addons, mainly), but when you say that you wish to have control over your device, you're forgetting that one can jailbreak an iOS device if they so desire which gives one vastly more "control" over it, so to speak.
Granted, a reason (aside from vastly cheaper hardware prices) I choose Android over iOS is the fact that I don't even have to root my device to get more customizations and options (I use SwiftKey, for example) than an iOS device that's non-jailbroken, but I do pay a price for that in regards to less functionality, security and performance compared to iOS devices (in certain circumstances) because of Android fragmentation, etc. - Just ask most musicians why they prefer iOS over Android, if you want just one case scenario.
But, all in all, I wouldn't paint all iOS users with one brush that says they don't want "control" over their devices. "Control" comes in many forms and methodologies and is often in the eye of the beholder anyway.
>On the second point, myself and my friends do not use Google as an ecosystem
But, you must admit that takes time and time is money. Finding third party alternatives (you can trust and work well) isn't free once you consider the time it takes to do so.
>The value of an iPhone seems to be of the entire Apple ecosystem, it makes sense if you've bought into it already, or are choosing to buy into it, but not if you do not choose to be locked in.
Agreed, but there's workarounds. Also, I feel that way about Android considering its fragmentation limitations. I'm locked into some apps on Android I really don't prefer and iOS has better, more competitive choices of related apps that vastly suit me better.
It's all give and take, really. In the end, I choose Android (overall) but since I also have iOS devices I use for testing purposes, etc. I have no allusions that there's sacrifices I make by choosing Android over iOS.
>he's personally so deep into the Apple world that his perspective is skewed by that reality.
I'd focus less on ad hominem and more on the facts.
Keep in mind, the FP article really doesn't do much to discount the piece I linked to and, as a matter of fact, reinforces just how close Reagan brought us to the brink of nuclear destruction.
From the FP article you linked to:
"His dread only grew by year's end when he learned that his nuclear buildup and anti-Soviet speeches had so terrified Kremlin leaders that they interpreted a nato war game as preparation for a real attack and put their military on high alert."
If it wasn't for reforms in the USSR (see Gorbachev), things might have very well ended in a nuclear holocaust due to Reagan's initial war mongering.
> to balance some of that out a bit
I'm not sure you read the article I linked to fully. It mentions Reagan's efforts to bring us back from the brink after he first disparaged and dismissed the nuclear freeze movement. The article actually mentions the fact that Reagan even went further than activists had asked for:
From the article I linked to:
" ... by the time of Reagan’s second term, the nuclear weapons policies of his administration actually went far beyond what the organizers of the freeze campaign had advocated. The Reagan Administration did not just halt the nuclear arms race, it actually began to reverse it."
But, for FP to try to polish Reagan up as a man of peace terrified of war is a bit delusional once we consider what it took to finally get him to cool his heels and desperately kick in massive damage control in the nick of time before nuclear armageddon. It's also interesting that FP didn't mention activists and their effect on the issue.
And, again, if it wasn't for the dumb luck of Gorbachev taking power, I have sincere doubts that Reagan could have rectified his previous war mongering in time.
As I said, we came much closer than most realize and Reagan nearly sent us all off the nuclear rails.