This is true in the same sense you don't need to own a pair of shoes.
Technically, sure, but there are jobs that require you to have a phone (at many different career points too), colleges that expect it, and more. And while there may be workarounds, they are often workarounds at someone else's expense, such as asking someone else to check the class schedule or work schedule.
So yes. You don't need to own a smart phone. And you don't need to own shoes. Both will get you (understandable) looks from general society. Both will limit what you can do. Both are somewhat understandable as having become a default, expected thing that people WILL have.
We were talking here about whether it is necessary for the government to intervene because of rising prices for consumer electronics, particularly high-end Apple products.
In that context, it is not only technically true that you do not need to buy those products. This simply does not strike me as an issue where the government would need to step in and regulate the market.
> because of rising prices for consumer electronics, particularly high-end Apple products
Here's your problem. This is not a consumer or Apple-specific issue whatsoever. Computing hardware is critical infrastructure in the digital age. The AI boom is inflating the cost of almost all compute for every business, including the cost of all cloud computing.
It's alot like housing, in that the average cost of housing directly inflates the average cost of living, impacting the poorer many orders of magnitude more than the richer. When all governments, companies, and individuals depend on computers to amplify productivity or deliver services, a significant increase in price will impact every government, company, and indiviudal.
An extremely small number of individuals or orgs being able to dramatically impact critical infra, and the cost of living – regardless of why – is a major national security and supply chain failure. This is the entire reason why monopolies and too-big-to-fail entities are bad for everyone, and anti-trust laws were created to being with; to prevent an extreme minority from influencing markets in such a way that it is detrimental to consumers and other market players or sectors.
The Chinese won’t be sitting around? They will consider it a vital area. And they will keep the engines going sitting back and daydreaming will only leave you further behind…
I don’t think government needs to get involved in the West, but some of those companies affected that have the resources are gonna have to reconfigure themselves and design around the three memory companies. The Chinese certainly will.
And arresting the users solves none of that. Maybe it hides it from casual observers, but if you actually want to help people, treatment programs and assistance, not cops, are what you need.
Obviously you have to go after supply … but both Japan and Singapore successfully tackle outdoor usage. You don’t see people openly using illegal drugs in either place. Obviously if you are able to procure and do your illegal drugs at home the police can’t stop you unless your neighbors rat you out.
I don't think you can compare East and West cultures like that. I think a big reason the West has so many open drug users is because shame and rule-following are not deeply ingrained parts of the culture. I don't think enforcement is what's doing the grunt of the heavy lifting in the East.
... in your case. There was a cash flow savings in your case.
I've moved several times and done the math each time. Sometime it's been more cost effective to own, sometimes to rent. There are a lot of factors that go into that calculation, and the math doesn't always fall on the side of buying. That's especially true if you don't expect to be in a house for decades.
The issue is not that companies don't have the funds to chase these bugs (which will impact future trust/revenue), it's that they don't want to spend it chasing these bugs. Next quarter thinking leads to bad software.
Sure, but I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that count. I’m fairly sure that’s because they felt it would be safer if the confidential info they sent wouldn’t stay around.
Technically, sure, but there are jobs that require you to have a phone (at many different career points too), colleges that expect it, and more. And while there may be workarounds, they are often workarounds at someone else's expense, such as asking someone else to check the class schedule or work schedule.
So yes. You don't need to own a smart phone. And you don't need to own shoes. Both will get you (understandable) looks from general society. Both will limit what you can do. Both are somewhat understandable as having become a default, expected thing that people WILL have.
reply