当下购买手机,最值得考虑的是操作系统,主流手机的操作系统是IOS和Android,跟据实际体验的不同,Android又可以细分为类原生Android和定制 UI。
在国内的环境下,IOS能让你很省心,代价则是将一切重要的信息交给一个并不值得相信的私有企业。
相对于IOS,定制UI没有那么省心,但是比类原生Android要方便些,然而便捷的代价则是满屏的广告,内置软件,追踪程序,这些定制UI号称保护隐私,实则监守自盗,只要读一读开机向导的隐私协议便一目了然了。老实说,我相信IOS也在上传不少的用户信息,而且会毫不犹豫地将其提供给中国共产党,但是大概没有EMUI, MIUI, Funtouch OS 那么主动。而且IOS没有广告,不是吗?如果你请了两个保姆,一个在家里贴小广告,一个没贴,那么没贴广告的保姆总是更可靠些。
接下来则是类原生Android,摩托罗拉,诺基亚,索尼,Pixel和HTC 均属于此类,一加原本属于类原生的行列,但有朝着定制UI靠拢的趋势。这一类厂商对于Android做了最低幅度的修改,相对来说系统比较干净,但通常也内置了自家或谷歌的软件。这些内置软件同样会向制造商和谷歌上传个人信息,只是这些信息相对来说不容易落到中国共产党的手里。当然,如果是国行就又是另一回事了,以诺基亚为例,诺基亚内置的手机管家其实就是腾讯管家,内置的应用商店则是换了图标的应用宝,这就是所谓的"本地化" 。索尼也好不到哪里去,同样把腾讯的那一套搬了进来。
如果你指望买到出厂系统就不带监控软件的手机,那么可以只有将目光转向Fairphone,Librem之类的欧洲小众品牌,它们很贵,而且买不到。可以这么说:对于普通人而言,买到不会监视你的手机基本是不现实的,区别只在于监视的多和少而已。如果你真正地在意自由,要么就不用手机,要么刷机就是你的必经之路。可以说,只有当你把手机的操作系统换成了Lineage OS,Havoc,SlimRom 之类既不内置国内流氓软件,也不内置国外Gapps,仅仅对
AOSP做了少数改动的纯净系统,才能算得上拥有了基础的隐私与自由。有些人也许还会更进一步说:不要你插着SIM卡接受基站的信号,你在暴露自己的位置,但这显然超出了我们能力的范围。使用接近AOSP的开源系统,是我们力所能及的,虽然光这么做还不够。至少在此条件下,你可以确保当你使用手机时,系统本身不会出卖你的隐私和自由。
那么哪些手机容易刷机呢?首先是国际上的摩托罗拉,索尼,Pixel 和HTC ,然后是国内的一加,联想,努比亚。这些设备的厂商通常不会在解BL锁时为难你,而且会有第三方Rom的支持。其次是小米,小米在申请BL解锁时会刁难用户,但这也比华为,Oppo,Vivo要好,因为后者直接就剥夺了用户解锁更换系统的权利。
综合地看,如果预算充足的话,Pixel, 索尼,HTC是首选。如果手头比较拮据,则可以选一加和小米。华为和OV则是最坏的选择,此外,华为是一个邪恶的企业。
在主流的视线之外,还有一些外贸机型,比如说Elephone,Bluboo和Doogee,这些手机通常由深圳的小厂生产,因为面向海外市场,所以系统十分接近原生Android,而质量也要好于普通山寨机,关键是价格便宜。
这就是我对于手机选择的看法,我认为操作系统是一部手机最为基础的部分,操作系统的安全和透明程度和手机值得信赖的程度是正相关的。(这里的安全是对用户而言,而不是对厂商而言,如果厂商对用户拥有无限权力,那么用户便不安全了,一个安全的操作系统应当站在用户的角度上,能够确保"风能进,雨能进,厂商和政府都不能进")
@mathlover Biden will do whatever is in his best interests, no matter how evil that may be. The moment it worked against him to propose segregationist policies he stopped proposing them.
The concern is not that he will actually enact segregationist policies. The concern is that he has demonstrated he is so exceptionally evil that his ability to make morally conscious choices is completely lacking.
Last time he held any sort of power was as a vice president. He and Obama felt it was ok to murder a 16 year old citizen with no trial at the time. So clearly he has gotten worse from a moral perspective since his segregation days, not better.
@design_RG Wait what... Gore "Gracefully" accepted a **Supreme court loss**... he took it to court, lost, and repeated that all the way to the supreme court, then lost again. He had absolutely no legal recourse left of any kind so he finally conceded... thats "graceful"...
How is that more graceful than trump.. Not only did he take it much farther than Trump (so far) but they are taking the exact same actions.. Neither is gracefully admitting defeat, and so far Gore was a hell of a lot more stubborn than trump (we will see if trump actually takes this to the supreme court, if so then they will be on equal footing at best).
@design_RG Personally I dont care if Gore or Trump go to court. Thats democracy, if people think things are unfair thats how we resolve it. I'm all for testing the accuracy and fairness of the election system.
What I do take issue with is the hypocrisy of people trying to play it off like Trump is undermining democracy and doesnt care about America by going to court.. especially after 4 years of democrats trying to overturn the election and after Gore did the same thing a few years ago...
这位专栏作家在文章的结尾呼吁:不要总是去想拉丁裔选民出了什么问题。我们没有问题。我们很复杂,我们的行为并没有什么固定的方式,我们很难被一概而论。但这并不代表我们有病。
有病的是政治体制,而政治体制也就包括了总统候选人。如果你们想了解我们,那么就去了解,了解我们的第一步,就是不要侮辱我们。
一位拉丁裔美国专栏作家写道,大多数所谓专家在分析为什么许多拉丁裔选民投票给了川普时都给出了错误的解释。
比如说,许多专家试图贬低投给川普的拉丁裔选票的重要性。他们说,川普的吸引力仅仅局限于佛罗里达的古巴选民,哥伦比亚选民和委内瑞拉选民,这些选民在传统上就支持共和党。这种说法忽视了一个很明显的事实,那就是川普在亚利桑那和德克萨斯的墨西哥裔中间同样获得了大量选票。
再比如说,这些专家声称,拉丁裔之所以投给川普是出于宗教信仰,许多拉丁裔信奉天主教,反对堕胎。身为民主党的拜登支持堕胎,吓跑了他们。 然而民调表明,支持堕胎还是反对堕胎这个问题上,拉丁裔的态度基本上是五五开,有45%的拉丁裔美国人支持堕胎,在年轻一代的拉丁裔美国人中,支持堕胎的就更多了,不论他们信不信天主教。 事实上,支持还是反对堕胎,对选票的影响很小。在接受调研时,拉丁裔列出了他们最关心的议题,分别是:工作,经济和医疗。
最后,根据一些过时的刻板印象,这些专家会洋洋自得地说:这是因为大男子主义!他们坚持认为,川普在男性拉丁裔选民中尤其受欢迎,因为从拉美地区移民过来的人通常会崇拜强人。川普虽然很失败,但是他展现出了强硬的形象,所以拉丁裔愿意选他当总统。 这就更是胡扯了,在拉丁裔选区中,最为强大,最有活力,最有力量的势力根本就不是男人,而是女人,是女性拉丁裔的选票塑造了整个拉丁裔的选票。
@star
Biden literally fought to keep schools segregated which is how he got in the senate in the first place. His own words as to why is because he didnt want white schools to become a "racial jungle"... If you think trump is more guilty of diving us by racial lines then i think its time you look at the policies each of them passed again. Segregation is pretty much dividing by racial lines by definition.
@star I think it says it all that Biden and biden supports lost their shit when Trump engaged in peace talks with our enemies. Meanwhile Biden was off murdering US citizens in drone attacks (including a 16 year old boy) with no trial or due process and apparently thats A-Ok by the democrats.
trump cant reach Bidens level of evil even if he tried. Trump does something bad and people accuse him of murder. Biden literally is caught red hadden being part of murder of a US citizen and most democrats dont even know about it.
@star Man I wish that were true. Biden did far **far** mroe evil in his political career than trump even approached. Trump is just an idiot and says dumb and even horrific shit. But ultimately thats about as far as it went.
The bigger issue isnt even that biden is significantly more evil with the track record to prove it, the bigger issue is he isnt an idiot in the way trump is and knows how to play the game and manipulate people into thinking Trump is the enemy and he is the good guy. That makes him not just evil but effective atit.
和许多偏执地认为投川普的选民都是种族主义者的人不同,华裔民主党初选候选人杨安泽直言:之所以依然有一大群人投了川普,是因为在身处工人阶级的普通人眼中,民主党已经成为了沿海城市精英的代名词,他们不关心如何改善普通人的生活,而是整天在文化问题上指手画脚。
杨安泽描述了他竞选总统时的经历:好几次,他告诉卡车司机,售货员,餐馆的工作者,他要竞选美国总统,这些人就问杨安泽:"你是哪个党的?" 杨安泽回答道:"我是民主党的。" 结果,这些人一听到''民主党''三个字,就把身子缩了回去,仿佛听到了什么令人作呕,非常负面的东西。杨安泽说,民主党本应该替这些人说话,如今却成为了这些人讨厌的对象,在他看来,这才是民主党最根本的问题。
我当然不是说女权主义和反种族主义是错误的思想,也无意表明,种族,阶级和性别问题并不存在,一个糟糕的现象是,词语之间的边界愈发模糊,词语的意义无限延伸,"法西斯主义'''反种族主义''和"女权主义"都涵盖了过多与本义无关的含义。但是我的确认为,一种主义,不论它号称是什么,如果它是自上而下的,灌输式的,命令式的,不容置疑的,反个人自由的,那么它只会结出恶果。
看到一位朋友在谈论"觉醒文化"以及它对川普竞选起到的作用,于是我也想谈谈我对''觉醒文化''的看法:
我把它称作"觉悟文化" ,因为它类似于共产党说的''阶级觉悟''。表面上看"觉悟"意味着思想的解放,实际上它意味着接受特定意识形态的教条,扮演该意识形态所规定的角色,这个意识形态可以是共产主义,也可以是后殖民主义,"反种族主义",''女权主义'',或者是"LGBT主义"。
"觉悟文化"的鼓吹者会把某个人群捧得非常高,比如,共产党经常吹捧无产阶级,后殖民主义者经常吹捧非西方国家,"反种族主义者"经常吹捧黑人,"女权主义者''经常吹捧女人,等等。
但是这些吹捧是有前提的:
首先,这些人必须放弃自我,从属于一个整体,让身份定义自己的存在,你首先是一个"无产者",一个''黑人'',一个"拉丁裔",一个"中国人",一个"同性恋者'',然后才是你自己。 如果你要说,肤色和性别不能决定我是谁,唯有品格方能决定一个人。那么你就背叛了你的身份,突然变成了十恶不赦的"种族主义" "帝国主义" " 法西斯主义" 帮凶。
其次,这些人必须放弃思考,全盘接受某个意识形态的世界观,你是无产阶级,那就得推翻私有制,你是黑人,那就得反抗"无所不在" 的 ''系统化歧视",你是中国人,那就得反对"西方的自由民主"。这些教条不管是否符合事实,都必须被无条件接受,否则你就是在反对无产阶级,反对黑人,反对中国。''觉悟文化" 经常鼓吹文化和种族的多元,但对于思想观念的多元却是丝毫不能容忍的。在''觉悟者"的内部,思想必须高度统一,在选拜登还是选川普这个问题上尤其如此,比如今年有相当一部分拉丁裔选民投了川普,于是纽约时报和CNN就说他们把种族主义内化了,被洗脑了,不配当拉丁裔。
第三点,这些人必须扮演特定的角色,通常是受害者,这一方面是因为受害者情结能加深身份认同,并提高"身份觉悟" ,但更为重要的一点是:如果"受害者"这个角色不存在,那么整个意识形态的叙事就会崩塌,如果无产阶级不再遭受悲惨的剥削,那么谁来帮他们脱离苦海?如果黑人受歧视的状况得到了大副改善,那么谁来替他们抗击"系统歧视"?如果中国不再是一个可怜的东方国家,谁来替中国共产党"讨公道"?
第四点,这些人必须依靠"先进分子''的拯救。"无产阶级'' "黑人" 和 ''性少数群体"虽然很高尚,但是他们同时也很愚蠢,因为普通人就是愚蠢的,真理掌握在少数人手中,比方说,"先锋队"的手中。只有那些熟读马克思,阿多诺,福柯,德里达,对批判理论了然于心的"先进分子",才有资格领导革命,"群氓"就是等着被"英雄"统驭的,"革命就是少数人强迫大多数人接受前者所赐予的幸福" 。
第五点,这些人必须将仇恨和恐惧注入心中,因为没有什么比恐惧与仇恨更能说服人们放弃自己的理性与沟通欲望,盲目地相信某种理论。如果你相信人与人之间的关系并不是你死我活,就像原始丛林的动物一样,人们有进行合作,沟通,达成共识的能力,那么你就很可能会去合作,沟通,达成共识,就很难固守某个特定的意识形态。相反,如果你坚信,与你意见相左的人必然道德败坏,无可理喻,是硬核的纳粹主义者,帝国主义者,白人至上主义者,资本家的帮闲,那么你不会把对方当作正常人,无法容忍对方的任何言论,因为''他们"是邪恶的"敌人"。同时,因为恐惧,你没有安全感,没有安全感就老要找一个外在的强权去依附他。恐惧越多,仇恨越多,就越容易去迷信某种特定的意识形态。
我认为,"觉悟文化''是一种反个人,反自由,非理性,倾向专制的思维和行为方式,并且同历史上的共产革命和雅各宾专政有不少相似之处,普通人对于''觉悟文化"的反感,以及民主党对于"觉悟文化''的支持,是川普能够获取选票的重要原因。
A libre replacement for duolingo:)
https://librelingo.app/course/spanish-from-english/
Currently only Spanish, no signup required but preferred if you want to track your progress
#language #learning #education #libre #foss #duolingo #alternative
MCNBC称大选的过程中出现了"非常多的种族主义",对"黑人性质"的攻击,和对''觉悟''的攻击,因为依然有许多人投川普。
可以预见,若民主党取胜的话,主流媒体依然会继续鼓吹身份政治,认为美国民众的''觉悟"不够,并以此为理由继续进行仇恨灌输。
https://thehill.com/homenews/morning-report/524580-the-hills-morning-report
Public opinion: The polling industry is in serious trouble in the wake of the 2020 election outcomes, according to some critics. Other veteran political analysts argue that in a presidential election with more than 101 million early votes and overall record-setting participation, the survey models in some national and state surveys were destined to be wrong. The Hill’s Jonathan Easley reports on an “embarrassing election night” for the polling world.
In 2016, pollsters, in some cases unfairly, were widely perceived as off the mark. On Wednesday, they were decried as having performed worse than four years ago. The Atlantic called it a “polling crisis,” while journalist Jon Ward, writing for Yahoo Finance, said the industry has some “soul searching” to do. The gap between the pre-Election Day national poll average estimating the former vice president’s lead and actual results may turn out to be vast. In other words, polls may have tumbled toward the correct result but with bad data (Fox News). Pollster John Zogby, whose firm had predicted a narrow presidential contest, told Bloomberg TV on Wednesday he agreed that overall, polling this year was worse than in 2016. He said poll models this cycle were “getting too many Democrats and not enough Republicans,” and he hailed online versus telephone polling techniques as superior.
Polling is 'done,' says pollster
民调专家Frank Luntz说,他所在的民调产业已经"完蛋"了
@whirli Strictly speaking it is close. No winner is declared and anyone **could** win.. but two things to consider:
1) in the states that are undecided and Biden is in the lead, his lead is very small (less than 1% last I checked
2) in the states where trump has a lead the lead is sizable last I checked, 5% or so in most
3) Even if we just assume biden will take every state he is in the lead in and trump will take every state he is in the lead in, then trump would still win.
So while your right, it isnt decided yet, Trump is certainly pulling favorite.