smokingManhole
Your message pivots on the notion that supporting Israel is inherently wrong, which introduces a bias, making your argument logically flawed.
I can criticize HP for its poor technological performance while maintaining my support for Israel.
Consider NSO Group: by your logic, it's a technologically advanced company with questionable ethics. I find this logical because, although I'm intrigued by the technology behind Pegasus and recognize its technical excellence, I disagree with how its spyware is used. This distinction between technological skill and ethical standing is vital.
Regarding HP, according to your logic, it is deficient both technologically and ethically. Thus, it's justifiable to criticize it on technological grounds, moral grounds, or both. But for what concerns me, my support for Israel does not factor into my view of HP, as I would only consider boycotting HP for its poor products and services.
If any boycott against HP is generalized as an anti-Israel stance, then HP will continue unaffected, and no boycott will succeed. Hence, it's vital to boycott HP for its actual failings, not because of a political agenda pushed by a few, which could sabotage the effectiveness of the boycott.
I believe in evaluating a tech company based on its technological merits and customer service quality, rather than its political connections or decisions.
However, if the boycott shifts to a political basis, specifically regarding Israel, it aligns the act of boycotting HP with the stance of supporting Hamas/Palestine, a viewpoint that is definitely not universally accepted. This politicization could render the boycott ineffective, as it then appeals only to those opposing Israel, not those focused on HP's technological and service shortcomings.
I believe that the grounds for boycotting HP should not be linked to its association with Israel in any manner.
The legitimate reasons for boycotting HP lie in its substandard customer treatment and the gradual decline in the quality of its products and services.
When individuals boycott companies due to their ties with Israel, it only intensifies my inclination to support those companies.
We should focus on HP's bad technology, not politics. Bringing politics in just confuses the main issue.
Tech journalism has always been like this.
To avoid the terrible feeling of cringe, I always tried to steer clear of this kind of article, especially when it's written by someone who doesn't know shit about the content but still decides to talk about it.
This is ~~probably~~ the most stupid and useless article I read in the last months. It feels like it was written by a 6 year old with access to DALL-E.
I partially agree. They created a monopoly because they offer the best search engine service. You can't be accused of making a monopoly if your competition is embarrassingly bad and no one wants to use any service but yours.
What they are doing now, regardless of how they gained this monopoly, is ensuring that every cow that feeds on the grass of their field yields profitable milk.
They are still going to pursue it, just under a different name and rolling-out timeline. What they changed is only the way they are announcing it publicly.
It's going to be "DRM for the Web, but with extra steps".
The timing couldn’t be better. For me, the only thing missing from Firefox for Android (or, even better, Mull) was a translation feature; otherwise, it was perfect. The lack of translation was the only reason I found myself opening the Chrome app, and I am eagerly looking forward to no longer needing it.
I was once a fervent supporter of Google, but now see it moving towards Apple's approach. This shift doesn't feel like the result of malicious intent on the part of Google’s engineers, but rather a change driven by non-technical roles (business, marketing, ...) aiming to boost revenue margins. When these roles lead a company's direction, you can already hear the ticking clock of its fate.
The demo is showing some cherry-picked examples, but it is definitely on a good track. I can't wait to see future releases with more consistency.
There is nothing wrong with this news. In fact, it is good news.
We develop technologies, and then we are not supposed to use them? It was obvious that certain jobs had an expiration date, and dubbing is clearly one of them.
If we had to stop progress, we would still be having silent movies, otherwise the person writing the intertitles would lose its job. Or even no movies at all.