I'm amazed that in ~450 comments, the word "capitalism" is mentioned in just one - yours - and you've been downvoted for criticizing it!
It seems even a group that purports to be rational critical thinkers don't want to be rational critical thinkers to the extent of looking into the root causes.
"True" has a connotation of absoluteness and finality. But I doubt humanity can ever know what is "true" about the universe. We can only model its phenomena with better theories, where "better" is always a temporary badge conferred for its prediction power and degree of agreement with known observations. Until an even "better" theory is figured out.
"Now they just need to figure out which ones are _better_"
IMO, neither the UK not the US went to war over moral objections to Nazi or other imperialist ideologies. They themselves were imperialists.
They went to war to fight Germany's, Japan's, and Russia's attempts at geostrategic hegemony. If Germany, USSR, and Japan had stayed in their geostrategic lanes, they wouldn't have invited a war on them.
> If a party today advocated just rolling back to those policies verbatim, they would be called Nazis immediately.
This seems to imply a social ideology rather than a geostrategic one. The term "Nazi" is used for a specific brand of social ideology, not a general term for imperialist policy.
> I know nothing about Atlantic currents or this particular monitoring project
That's the problem.
> This article failed on any level to help me make an informed decision.
You shouldn't rely on just one article to make an "informed decision."
Indeed, anyone who genuinely wants to make "informed decisions" must cultivate the habit of actively seeking out to be better informed rather than passively relying on a single article.
There's an entire chain of events that the links in this article lead to...
...The NSF is descoping.
...It's descoping because of federal funding cuts to science projects
...Federal funding cuts are due to the pro-fossil-fuel biases and climate change skepticism of the rightwing Trump admin and its backers. Their ideological strategy to redesign American society, Project 2025, specifically mentions disbanding this very monitoring project.
I was able to find that all out in about 15 minutes though I'm neither American nor reside there or anywhere close to it.
A performative pretense of informed decision making is not the same as genuinely making informed decisions.
Every type of content will have some restrictions. Structural, ideological, financial.
Just about every type of written content on a platform has word limits imposed by its editors. Word limits restrict how much context can be provided in any single article.
Style guides, personal beliefs, management directives, and legal risks impose ideological and political restrictions. Even if an author is candid in the draft copy, reviewers and editors make them tone it down or tone it down themselves without asking the author.
Also doubtful whether a reputed university for elites like Yale will directly point fingers at the rightwing in power or at an elites' blueprint like Project 2025.
Personally, I think all these criticisms of this article are actually a form of centrist deflection and pretense. Centrists support rightwing policies but also don't want to come across as morally bad in such fora. So, to justify their centrism, they criticize the messengers through bikeshedding.
> Wait, is everyone who posts on who wants to be hired a sad down-and-out unemployed waif at the end of their rope?
That should be the assumption in an ethical society. Especially given the current economic context. Veil of ignorance principle.
> It makes it out to be unhireable charity cases.
Any "hireable" expert can run into bad luck. A person down on their luck doesn't imply "unhireable." Those recruiters who assume something so illogical - well, perhaps job seekers in this forum are overall better off without such illogical recruiters in the pool. If they make such a wrong assumption at the start, who knows what other illogical assumptions they'll make once the job starts.
I don't see it as clickbait since the realities of the Android ecosystem is a shared context.
Most people know that just about every Android phone has a restricted hardware design, not an expandable one.
So, "turn your phone into X" is bound to automatically evoke images of another device that plugs into the phone via common connectors like USB or the audio jack and an app on the phone to control that device. That's what the phrase means to most people in the context of Android.
"Turn your phone into a ham radio transceiver controller" is neither needed nor entirely accurate, because then people will assume it can control _any_ ham radio transceiver.
The article is chiefly about a radio circuit you can "build", plus some controller software that happens to run on an Android phone. Meanwhile
the headline is 100% focused on describing something that your phone can be made to do (which you have admitted that it can't).
The two don't add up, and your apologetic analysis doesn't convince me otherwise. It's still clickbait. An Android cell phone has radio guts, and that headline is just gutless.
Why do some people get so hung up about minor things in life. The OP has done a fantastic job, not just building it, but both the delivery and mechanics.
The title is still misleading to me. Not terribly so – hence my not quite serious reply – but I was expecting something like https://timestation.pages.dev/, which actually transmits using included hardware only.
However, your analogy is not equivalent to, nor an example for, what I said. There's a difference between a phone's own USB/audiojack interfaces and a wall outlet.
The post's recommendations and analogies kind of go against two shortcut approaches that have helped a lot of people in the pre-AI real world:
1) perfect is the enemy of good
2) fake it till you make it
The analogies imagine difficult scenarios where the habit of taking shortcuts doesn't help. But most people most of the time don't run into those scenarios at all.
I find the coordination between nations suspicious.
But what you said - "It's also because social media is part of the USA's soft power projection, and many of us now consider this to be a threat." - strikes me as the most plausible driver behind it, given how chummy Trump and the techbros have become.
I agree with your other observations about SM. But they've all been true from many years. That's why this sudden urge by culturally diverse societies to act now feels suspicious, to me at least.
> I find the coordination between nations suspicious.
You shouldn't. I mean, they talk to each other continuously. Them coordinating things is normal. The EU nations will be doing even more coordination, because the EU is a body for the coordination of those nations.
> That's why this sudden urge by culturally diverse societies to act now feels suspicious, to me at least.
We're not all that diverse, really. Ironically, social media may have brought us all together against social media. And it's not really all that sudden, this has been building for many years now.
Similar things due to Trump trying to bully everyone, but specifically NATO, the EU, and the Americas (and all the international stuff DOGE cut) will have a lot more stuff like this, some of which will be coordinated, some of which will be everyone spontaneously making similar decisions. That too will take years… well, unless Trump actually picks a kinetic fight with a NATO country, then political years pass in a few weeks.
Well, I happen to use it everyday. I honestly don't know what exactly is "terrible/horrible/awful" about it. I'm neutral about its UX - neither memorable nor despicable.
It may be missed if the new app's UX turns out to be worse on whatever metrics you're using.
It seems even a group that purports to be rational critical thinkers don't want to be rational critical thinkers to the extent of looking into the root causes.