Yeah, code editors really missed the memo that the XDG tried sending out, that (… mostly) works so well on Desktop Linux

… which is then displayed in a longer comment…

based on text

… where have I seen that before? Genius!

Wonder why email as an identifier wasn’t sufficient…

Yes Signal is goog

Weren’t they literally sued and almost broken up for doing something like this by antitrust prosecutors like 25 years ago?

My mother’s maiden name is pagbdjsGajwHGaj8283Hwnwmfueuhs, why?

Btw, this is unironically how you should treat security-related “questions”. It’s just another password to break. And you wouldn’t use these things as a regular password.

Maybe something like MyMother’sMaidenName?RandomNumber172839it’sNoneOfYourBusiness. Maybe.

Interesting.

Yep, that’s a fitting term. You definitely still have to rely on macOS (and keep a copy of it around, e.g. for firmware upgrades, which of course basically only come bundled with macOS versions), but other than that, you can do more or less what you want to – as long as you’re outside of it.

I quite like this idea though if I’m being honest, normie users get all the hardened security from the regular boot chain without experiencing basically any difference/downsides, while hardware enthusiasts and (Linux) tinkerers still have options open (well, options that you can get if you have a new chip on a rarer architecture with previously no third party OS).

Your understanding is incorrect, I think.

Apple specifically chose to leave it (or some part of the chain, I don’t actually know, not an expert lol) open, otherwise, a project like Asahi Linux would not have had a chance from the getgo.

I might try to read up on it when I find the time whether they still have to rely on something signed by Apple before being able to take over in the boot process.

While I agree in general, and the overall sentiment/direction here to steer towards (morally) is clear… let’s stick to facts only.

you need Apple’s blessing to boot anything on a Mac

Bootloader is unlocked and alternative OS exist. Or what else did you mean by that?

Amazon may be monopolistic, but I have access to more products through from different brand names than I do through the rest of the local multinational chains.

That’s the core issue, I think.

Amazon might be the first major case of monopolistic tendencies where the firm’s behavior hasn’t been obviously disadvantageous (or obvious it will be in the not so distant future) to the consumers from the getgo. So you’d effectively be regulating and banning towards a worse consumer experience, as of now…

If we wanted short clips, we’d be on TikTok damnit!

Exactly. YouTube doesn’t want to lose out on that revenue/time spent on other platforms…

So at least in Europe, where they can unionize and can and do protest for their rights, I don’t see them as any worse than many other multinational chains that do the same.

Do you happen to know whether they actually are unionized in EU countries though, or just could? Genuine question, as I couldn’t tell you (as a German citizen)

Aside from that though, even if warehouse and delivery workers’ conditions were absolutely fine, their monopolistic tendencies are still somewhat of an issue. I’ll try not to turn this into a full essay, because this topic can get real philosophical REAL fast (we’re about 3 winded sentences away, I’d guesstimate).

But: AWS aka Amazon’s cloud business prints SO incredibly much money that they can perhaps unfairly undercut a grocery competitor like Kroger’s, Aldi, and whatnot are their names, that they can start to have a really, really good advantage quite quickly (as hinted to by OP’s order above: not plastics, not electronics, not household goods – food). In case any reader isn’t aware, grocery chains’ margins are absurdly, comically low.

The firm policies/microeconomics philosophy comes in here: how much cross-subsidizing should an undertaking actually be allowed to do? In other words, when is a company expanding too much – even though expansion is something that you could argue to be a core, if not the integral part of what defines a business? Europeans will perhaps see this a bit more strictly, whereas Americans might be inclined to answer close to unlimited here, but keep in mind, this can lead to Mega-everything-corp faster than you realize or like.

I didn’t make all of this up on the spot just now, BTW (some first further “readings”). This has been a somewhat well known issue for some years now, and people knew there could be a day coming where we as a (global) society have to ask ourselves: How many areas can a company dominate in before it becomes too dangerous?