I referenced March 2023, because it’s when the RESTRICT act passed which limited Tiktok. I also referenced April 2023 as a total public ban because I mixed it with the date that Montana banned public usage of Tiktok, which was followed by 2024 bill “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act”, being a public ban like Montana, but also close to the RESTRICT act. Similar acts, close dates.

And I am only refuting what the article is claiming, that the Tiktok banned is solely about improving the image of Israel in regards to Palestine, because until Oct 2023, it wasn’t US political issue so wouldn’t have had anything to do with the ban. There never was a reference to anything about israel, Palestine, and Tiktok before that date. Which is the opposite of what this article claims.

The genocide of palestinians didn’t begin in 2022

Never said it did. I did say/indicate that it was never a social/political issue until 2023. Things can happen for a long time, but take a sudden change to make it a big issue.

In fact, please, I would love to see anything political about Israel/Palestine in US politics/policy attempting/intended to make Israel look better on regards to Palestine (as is implied in the article) that predates Oct 2023. As you’ve, and others, have pointed out (I already knew, since it dates to biblical times), that it’s been an issue for so long, then this should be simple. It keeps trying to be pointed out that the Oct 2023 event seemed to mean nothing about it, so you or anyone else should have no problems with this.

Bonus points for showing how it relates to Tiktok before that date too, which again with everyone’s insistence about it, should be no problems at all.

If you make the point simpler it works. “We are banning tiktok because it is a social media platform we have no ability to censor”

I won’t argue against that.

with this in mind it makes sense to say “its because of isreal-palastine” because that is just a facet of not having control over platform censorship.

This part is illogical though. Claiming that due to a future event, we went back in time to block/and-or control a message makes no sense. This was my entire point. They are blocking it for many reasons and have been for years, but claiming the whole reason they spent years attempting to block it because of a single event that happened years later makes no sense.

Sorry, I confused it with to the RESTRICT act (Mar 2023), which is similar to the 2024 law.

So let me get this straight…

The Tiktok ban, that was first proposed in Jan 2020, and was banned from government devices in Dec 2022, was getting first drafts for laws banned in Dec 2022, another law was proposed to block in nationwide in Jan 2023, was further restricted in March of 2023, and was signed into law to banned Tiktok nation wide on April 2023 (to be completely removed by Jan 2025) is solely being done to censor information about a conflict that started in Oct 2023…

Yeah, check outs. 👍

It’s a bad headline, but I see where you were coming from.

The article does mention:

It follows news that Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, has already contributed $1 million to the fund. And Amazon has also promised a $1 million infusion into Trump’s inauguration coffers.

So it was name dropping, but it’s being done as a company, not the individual. Sam Altman is still mentioned as a single and not as a company again though.

I didn’t follow these donation news too closely, but from the headlines it always sounded like they do it personally!?

Really? I’ve never seen a single article that said that. Even this one points out that

Amazon, Meta, Uber, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Coinbase, Toyota, Ford, GM, AT&T, Black & Decker, and Charter Communications are also making donations to Trump’s inauguration fund.

None of these say Zuckerberg, or Bezos, etc… (except for Sam Altman). Seems that it’s companies that are the norm.

What I’m curious about is, according to the article, Tim Apple is donating from this own money and won’t be donating Apple’s money. Why make it a personal donation and not a corporate one?

While others are donating as companies (don’t agree with this either but different subject), none are doing it as a personal donation. As the face of Apple, he won’t get far claiming that it doesn’t reflect Apple as a company, so why not just m make it corporate? Unless it’s for tax reasons?

New Zealand? What’s that?

Japan is near the bottom of my list for western countries

Japan is an Eastern country. In fact, it’s the farthest East county possible.

I think the words you were looking for were “first world countries”.

Which one is it? This isn’t Schrodinger’s iPhone.

So I still don’t understand the fervour people had over this - the only reason I can think of is not understanding how it worked.

Or that it was a built in backdoor running in your device.

The difference is what happens on your own device should be in your control. Once it leaves your device then it’s not in your control. Which is where the entire issue was. It doesn’t matter if I toggle a switch on whether to allow upload or not, the fact it was happening on my device was the issue.

I think I was the only one who actually read the paper and didn’t go “REEEE muh privacy!!!” after seeing the headline.

Did you also read the difference in how Apple was trying to go about it and how literally everyone else was going about it?

Apple wanted to scan your files on your device, which is a huge privacy issue and a huge slippery slope (and a backdoor built in).

The entire industry scans files when they are off your private device and on their own personal computers. So your privacy is protected here, and no backdoor built in.

Apple just had a fit and declared that if they can’t backdoor and scan your files on your own device then they just won’t try anything, even the most basics. They could just follow the lead of anyone else and scan iCloud files, but they refuse to do that. That was the difference.

You already own your own crypto though, without buying it.

The issue isn’t that he bought low and sold high, but that he bought his own property from himself to give the illusion that it had value and demand that didn’t really exist. And if he hid the fact that he was the purchaser of his own coins, this would make it even more shady. He didn’t want it to be successful, just to artificially inflate its value long enough to make a good sum of money and then run.

Think like buying a junker car and pouring sawdust in the engine to hide the clanking noise so you can sell it for more than it’s worth. You have artificially made it more valuable in the short term to make money and left the fall to the next guy.

Is it illegal? As this is crypto, not technically due to lack of regulation.

Wait until you see what the new OSs will need soon. Windows Copilot+ PC, macOS with Apple Intelligence, and newer versions of Android all have a starting need of 16GB (for background AI processes that are done on device). I doubt they will have a small idle RAM footprint.

(iPhone and iPad OS hasn’t been stated for their RAM requirements, but they never do.)

From how it’s (badly phrased) it sounds like he made the coins and then “bought” 5% of all of them (from himself) to make it look like there were people buying it, then marketed it out for others to also buy.

Similar idea behind the whole GameStop stocks pump and dump happened. Put in some money to give the illusion that it’s hot and in demand, and then cash out when enough have joined.

Wow, what is running in your background though?

I have Windows 11 and it uses a total of 5.6 GB of RAM (I’m also using a Surface Pro 7 if that matters) at idle. I would bring up task manager and see where all that RAM is going.

Have you tried something like Wine or even Proton for it? I know that Proton is thought as more for games, but it runs Windows apps in general. Just add the app as a “game” in Steam and tell it to run with a version of Proton.

Chromium is being used in 70% of browsers

To me, I don’t think that should be an issue in anything. That’s up to browser makers. They are able to use whatever they want, and they will use whatever is easiest/best for their usage. They are also free to use WebKit (Safari’s engine), Gecko (Mozilla), or roll their own. This just sounds like you want to punish someone because they made something everyone preferred just because everyone preferred it.

It’s different when you are “forced” to use it (use ours or we won’t let you on our devices, like iOS, or use ours and we will lower/cut our fees for other things you want/need, like many different companies). But when the public is truly free to use what they want and they all want the same thing, then it shouldn’t be used as a reason to punish them.