That doesn’t seem to be true in practice.

People on the secondhand market seem to be more drawn to other “premium” brands and to features that are less important for a smartphone than security (e.g. camera zoom).

Most places I’ve looked, secondhand Pixels are priced similarly to or lower than other brands’ secondhand “flagship” phones of similar age - even though Pixels have a killer feature the others lack: security hardware to run GrapheneOS.

I guess @Salvo might have been referring to the possibility of subverting “trusted” platform modules into treacherous ones.

I don’t judge but I do get annoyed…

Getting annoyed is a form of judgement.

… at US defaultism

Yes, U.S. defaultism is problematic.

Still, as long as companies, especially US-based ones like Google, are exporting their US-centric products & practices, people outside the US will be exposed to products & practices shaped by US law.

Because enforcement is rarely watertight, the above holds true even if the importing country’s laws forbid those products & practices.

Therefore, unless you wish to live in ignorance, it’s worth being aware of the laws that most strongly shape the technologies that in turn shape your society - even laws from jurisdictions outside your own.

Exactly how does it have implications in a country it’s not a law of?

Because it had, and continues to have, a significant bearing on the development of technologies that are used internationally, many of which shape the society you live in.

Not gonna dispute that.

However, someone like that not only probably wouldn’t want to submit residency evidence to Google, they probably wouldn’t have utility bills or land registry documents etc that could prove residency. Therefore, they’d be outside the scope of this post.

They might not know it.

But they would, if anyone with your name & address ever:

• Stored it on a Google server. (Maybe a business you once placed an order with uses GSuite?)
• Made a Google/GMail Contacts/Address-book entry with that info. (Maybe you invited a friend or colleague for dinner?)
• Made those details public (land registry, company officer registry, etc).
• Etc.

Fighter jets have had to be used multiple times this year, in multiple countries (Romania, Latvia, …) to intercept Russian flying bombs in NATO airspace.

NATO countries, including Canada, routinely intercept Russian military aircraft probing NATO defences.

Without interceptors, more Russian bombs would have exploded on NATO territory, and NATO defences likely wouldn’t have been merely probed…

Putin is far more aggressive than you seem to think. Look at the mortality from his pet war. A person with a conscience would call a halt immediately; instead, Putin escalates. Chauvinistic death-cult dictators like him deride humanitarian arguments. They’re only stoppable with weapons. I wish that weren’t so, but history has shown again and again that it is.

Do you really think Canada would have fewer domestic crises if Trump or Putin invaded? Or if Russia openly attacked NATO?

In a world with narcissistic psychopaths like those in charge of enormous armies, you either invest in defence or you get conquered.

For Canada to possess some F-35s would not do much.

Canada would also need to maintain them if conflict arises. Non-trivial, if the US is both the source of software updates and spare parts, and also the aggressor against which Canada needs to defend.

Re: Russia as the aggressor, F-35 is also a risk because POTUS and VP might side partly or wholly with Russia, e.g. refusing/limiting US arms to countries fighting Russia.

Gripen has none of those problems.

The clankers in the OP are from mainland China, so are ultimately under CCP control.

The CCP has indicated for decades it plans to invade Taiwan (CCP refers to this as “reunification”).

People should be concerned. Robots like these may be deployed against Taiwan in the next few years.

Hopes these white coats show up at the White House real soon.

Is the word “Donut” kryptonite to Flock?

Why wouldn’t you be concerned about VM or container escapes?

In the UK at least, decisions and rationale about which vaccinations and treatments should be publicly-funded via the NHS are published quite transparently. For example: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/story/preventing-cancer-extending-vaccination-boys

Vaccinating everyone in the UK against everything for which vaccines are available (even against diseases with very low risk in the UK) would cost so much that the NHS would have to cut treatments with very high benefit-to-cost ratio.

Therefore, below a certain benefit-to-cost threshold, the UK has no reasonable choice except to withhold public funding. The HPV vaccine for boys was right on that threshold. IMO, the UK did the right thing by funding the clear benefit (HPV vaccine for girls, whose risk was significantly higher per existing evidence) and extending it to boys when additional evidence showed it was worth doing so.

Somewhat relevant: https://thebrainbin.org/m/linux@lemmy.ml/t/1858588

deleted by creator

Cost-benefit is the likely reason.

For comparison: the UK initially concluded the cost-benefit ratio was in favour of girls-only HPV vaccination, but IIUC updated this assessment and offered it to boys too after a public campaign by Jaime Winstone.

It would probably be a better use of time for those people to vote and lobby their legislatures for decent privacy protections in law.

Yet another example of why US citizens would benefit from GDPR-equivalent privacy laws.