Now, are you even aware that using Windows doesn't make you immune. And how far do you trust Microsoft not to fuck this delicate thing up at some point? Or someone finding a way via Windows?
Yes. Not in the slightest. Already been done in 20 lines of code as I understood it.
I assume it's exactly as broken as Microsoft designed it to be.
UEFI is crap, crap, crap and crap. It's utterly broken and failed. The only "benefit" it has is that Microsoft has become the potential gatekeeper for what you're allowed to run on your own computer, and that's it.
Sure it is. And when Linux has the clout to get hardware makers to build stuff they want, then feel free.
In the mean time, Microsoft has achieved exactly what they wanted, and if this is causing Linux to break, then Linux people need to deal with it instead of whining about it... because the reality is Microsoft doesn't give a crap about you, and isn't going to let the UEFI spec change to help Linux.
This is hardly the first time a new piece of technology Microsoft has pushed has proven to be lacking.
You might as well complain that Adobe should finally abandon Flash because it's crap... it's been crap for 15+ years, but nobody seems overly concerned.
But don't pretend like throwing a hissy fit about how it's broken is going to change the fact that it's broken. Yes, it's broken by design... but the people who designed it don't give a damn.
Your choices boil down to: implement it in such a way as to make it less broken, or leave it broken. Expecting the spec to change because it's a problem on Linux just won't happen. Because the people who wrote it have no interest in how it impacts Linux.
Yes, companies get together and foist crap on us because there's something in it for them.
They don't care about competition, they want to maximize profits. If circling the wagons around what MS wants does that for them, that's what you'll get.
But let's not be surprised that markets get skewed by collusion among players in the market. Because that kind of crap pretty much always happens.
No, we have awesome technology... but if I got excited over every hardware advancement on the front page of Slashdot which was going to completely change some common technology with 5 years... well, I'd be living in a perpetual state of disappointment.
Technology advances... getting breathless over all of the things which might be the next big thing, sooner or later you realize there's an awful lot of stuff which doesn't pan out.
If even a quarter of the breakthroughs in Lithium batteries we've seen on Slashdot had ever happened, I'd have a cell phone with a two month battery life.
So you'll excuse me if I've stopped getting excited about things which aren't in production yet, because the difference between a cool thing in a lab and something which is actually going to trickle down to the consumer can be significant.
Because "opens the door to improved mobile phones, nanosatellites, and computers" is a long way from being true.
So, yeah... wonderment and awe tends to be a casualty of enough years in the tech industry. Film at 11.
A careful review of previous ventures launched by the company's founders reveals a pattern of failed businesses, reverse mergers, shell companies and product promises that missed the mark by miles.
So, we can't say this was likely vaporware put up by rip off artists with a long history of failed companies making dubious claims... but it would appear this is the case.
TFA pretty much reads like these guys are likely shady players with a long history of this:
"These shell companies formed by [the company's founders] bilked investors," Landesman said. "Had anyone gone and investigated any of these partnerships they were espousing as being the next big thing, they would have realized this was all smoke and mirrors."
Someone sounds like they're fairly unambiguously calling these guys con artists.
English and German are even in the same family linguistically speaking
In some ways yes, but apparently in some ways no.
Years ago a friend was taking German classes, and apparently it has subject/verb stuff which can be at the end of sentences.
So one example of how it fell apart was a place in which the speaker went on for a long time, and the translator just stopped... because without knowing what was at the end of the long-winded sentence it was impossible know what to say next. It was a lot of stuff which couldn't be translated into English until it was all done -- and it took a VERY long time for that speaker to be done.
I got the impression that are still enough structural differences that it's more than a little challenging for skilled humans to do it.
So, if translating in real time can be near impossible, then I assume it's still damned easy for static translations to get mired down into stuff it can't handle well.
Well, let me remind you... the first companies to make black CPU cases, keyboards and mice for standard PCs had people buying it because everything had been beige before that.
Never underestimate how "wow, that looks cool" can be a factor with buying decisions. And never forget that at one point black PCs became super cool.
I remember a bunch of people standing around a new all black Dell going "ooh" and "aaah" over it.
Which meant the original iMac people went crazy over when you could get it in orange.
Apparently, consumers value this kind of stuff, and companies are willing to oblige.
LOL, I let Chrome translate it for me, and I got this:
From the date of the ultra-popular program "Emi-ten" of Nippon TV. But Korakuen Hall of the day, it had been wrapped in from usual little different atmosphere. Mumu~tsu, number of cameras is 3 units often! It big also strangely in Takeshi bone! Profusely many people! It is not a even if field technician you look, it's bossy It's beautiful.
Which tells me letting Chrome translate stuff from Japanese is a terrible idea.
I have no doubt they'll fix it, or do something to it... my point is Microsoft, or any other company, when introducing a piece of software makes the claims of how safe, and secure, and fast, and private, and awesome it is.
But until that's proven in the real world, it's just marketing claims.
So, I don't care who it is... come out with your new product and claim all those things, and it's a wait and see.
But in the case of Microsoft, whose track record with security doesn't make me automatically think I believe them, I'm going to assume even more that there's no reason to trust the claims. Because over and over we see security is done as an afterthought, falls short, and then people act surprised.
If Adobe suddenly said tomorrow that Flash was now safe and secure, I'd not believe them either, because they have a rather long history of not knowing how to make Flash secure.
And, now ask yourself... what can you do about that fact?
What's that? Nothing at all because the consortium who defined it doesn't care about what Linux does?
So, yes, UEFI may be broken... but it may also be that the way Linux is using it is wrong. And here, wrong is defined by "what did the people who built UEFI say?".
I don't give a crap about systemd... but at the core here, is someone has written code to work with a system they didn't create, and the solution is apparently to either be wrong by being read-only, or be wrong by being read-write.
What you can't do is say "given that both of these solutions are wrong, I'm going with one and blaming the other".
Yeah, whatever, I don't give a crap -- UEFI is a spec which exists separate from Linux. Either you can work with it as it exists, or you can almost kinda sorta work with it except for the corner case in which you break things.
If "rm -rf" breaking things is "by design", then it's a shitty design because it's incorrectly applying a model to something which clearly doesn't apply. But UEFI isn't going to change because Linux wants it to.
I don't give a shit what component it is, it sounds like it's mode of operation is more nuanced than the either/or bullshit I see here -- if doing it all one way or all another way is defective, the problem lies in insisting it still makes sense to do it all one way or all the other.
Grafting a particular way of doing things on top of things which don't work the way you think it does is YOUR DAMNED PROBLEM... I don't know if it's the kernel, or systemd, or the complete lack of a coherent way of doing this right.
So, I really don't give a damn about your opinion about my posting history... what I see is people using UEFI in a way that isn't compatible with it, and refusing to fix it.
Go ahead, brick your system, I don't care. But don't pretend like you can ignore how this mechanism is intended to work... no matter how broken the underlying system is. UEFI wasn't designed to benefit Linux, it was designed to benefit Microsoft.
If Linux can't work with it without shooting themselves in the foot, that's going to have to be something the Linux community deals with.
If it needs to be locked an unlocked in order to get the semantics right, do that. But don't whine when you decide you're not going to do that and it ends up causing problems.
That's called taking the high-ground because fixing it would violate the elegance of their code, and blaming the underlying stuff as inelegant is just easier.
It's one of those mentalities which leas to "I'd rather fuck up your system and lose your data than put a chink in my perfectly elegant solution which causes the problem".
It seems to me if you can fuck up your system by writing to this stuff, and you sometimes need to write to it, you need to have damned good guard code around it, semaphores, and an actual understanding of what you're supposed to do to lock and unlock it.
If mounting read-only is problematic, and mounting read-write is problematic... then it seems like the solution needs to understand that, and not simply go with one of the two wrong solutions and insisting the problem lies elsewhere.
Otherwise you're just saying "not my problem", and being a dick over your wrong, but otherwise awesomely elegant code.
UEFI exists as it is, and it isn't up to these guys to decree it should change... nobody consulted them when they built it, they're not going to consult with them in terms of how not to fuck it up.
By the same token, I'm not going to trust an app which decides it's going to silently update itself without telling me.
I think it's high on the "software-asshole meter". It says "we'll do anything on your device we choose", and I'm sorry to say, but it's my fucking device.
And since this has huge potential for security exploits and other malicious acts, it's a big risk for users that may not even know it's there.
I'm pretty sure unless you explicitly set Android to automatically update stuff your fix isn't going to get pushed to my device without me knowing it... and enabling auto-updates is something Microsoft and host of others have demonstrated is idiotic.
Because you really can't trust people who expect to just do a quick fix when nobody is looking. Because in my experience that usually means the software was poorly tested and pushed out the door.
Apple app approval may be "ridiculous" to you, but it beats the alternative of malware, or poorly thrown together code.
Boo hoo, you need to wait weeks... software cycles used to be FAR longer than that, and overall quality has suffered. Because people expect to push out a steaming turd every few weeks and call themselves agile.
I view software which bypasses approved update mechanisms and just does it in the background as little more than trojans and malware.
I couldn't agree more... you could do FAR more to educate those kids than spend it on teaching them to code.
How about a $4 billion school lunch program, or extra teachers, or tutoring, or athletics programs, or teaching them all the things they barely have the resources for now?
This is just a huge monkey sink, created as a vanity/legacy project by rich assholes who think the world needs to code, instead of looking what kids actually need.
This isn't really about improving the lives of kids and improving educational outcomes -- this is about the perception of doing something cool and trendy.
But as long as government allows corporations to replace domestic workers with cheap foreign labor, the entire point of this program is being completely undermined.
This is just spending money on the wrong things. Teaching kids to code should not be touted as some cure-all for society, because it's never going to be that.
There's far bigger problems than kids who might never learn to code.
I know, it's a radical and wacky idea, and it will even be controversial... but, yes.
The sad thing is, for most consumers, they just go "ZOMG teh app" and don't stop to think "what does this really do for me?".
It's like those terrible mobile sites which reditect you away from finding the fucking information you'd come looking for... if all your mobile version of the web site is keep me from finding what Google sent me here for, your mobile website sucks.
Well, they give themselves an unfair advantage against their competitors, yes... so if they're going to meter someone else's traffic, they need to meter their own... or it becomes "nice connection, shame if something happened to it".
If you want net neutrality, not being able to tilt the playing field in your favor is part of that. If you don't want net neutrality, they can just decide to block your Netflix access.
It really is two sides of the same coin, because it prevents them making their service cheaper by virtue of charging you for someone else's traffic, and calling theirs free.
If they'd charge you for the bandwidth from one site, they can't just give you the same bandwidth for free and pretend that's different... they could use that to put competitors out of business and then charge through the nose.
Your narrative claims some form of racism but even your own example has nothing to do with race
No, my narrative hasn't got a fucking thing to do with racism.
After the Dark Ages, where the Church basically did their best to wipe out human knowledge and sanitize everything... then the descendants of those damned people went about "discovering" everything they had long since forgotten.
The point isn't white, brown, pink or yellow skin... it's about morons obliterating knowledge and history for their own purposes and then being too clueless to realize they'd just "discovered" things which had been known before.
Self inflicted ignorance isn't some noble thing to hold up for all to see.
It's like saying the Vikings discovered North America.
Wait, the Vikings discovered it and settled it.
They didn't go around telling people they'd invented it, but they sure as hell 'discovered' it and navigated back and forth.
The entire point is Europeans, after many hundreds of years rooting around in the muck like ignorant morons, rediscovered many things which had been known in antiquity... and then proceeded to pretend like the barbarians who came before them were far too unsophisticated to have known this stuff.
And increasingly that view of history written to soothe the egos of those Europeans and their descendants is proven to be largely rubbish, which has nothing to do with reality.
And I say this as a white guy of European ancestry -- what we call history is really mostly "the history as told by white people who had no clue about what was really happening before they got their heads out of their asses".
While Europe rooted around in the muck and the filth, they forgot that things like math, navigation, and indoor plumbing had been around for a very long time. And then they pretended like they invented them.
This reminds me of why I am forever reluctant to trade the music I have locally (on CDs, hard drives, and a few bits of vinyl I've been unwilling to jettison) for any kind of streaming service, whether it promises perpetuity or good-until-next-payment.
I'm not willing to having streaming only media.
I'm not paying for the bandwidth to listen to every song. I'm not asking some greedy corporation for permission to play the song every time I play it. I'm not providing some greedy corporation with information or data every time I play it. I'm not having some greedy corporation tell me I'm not allowed to listen to my music because I'm on vacation. And I'm sure as hell not allowing some greedy corporation to decide I no longer have access to it.
I'll do what I've always done... buy the CD, thereby ensuring the artist gets paid, rip the CD into DRM free MP3, and then forever not give a shit what the copyright bastards think.
When I buy CDs I buy them very infrequently, buy a very large quantity in one go (usually 40-50 in a go). I have a large CD collection, and I'm sure as hell not pirating your stuff.
I don't give a damn about your subscription model, your on-going revenue, your permission to play it wherever I choose, or if you think I'm allowed to make backups of it.
Piss off with your subscriptions and your paywall... I am the guy who still buys music, stop trying to find new ways to make me stop doing it.
I decided a while ago on my Nexus tablet I'd uninstall any app which was essentially just a web-page... because I don't have to worry about ads and permissions.
A shocking amount of apps are just wrappers around the same content as the web page, and just wanted to collect my data and serve up ads.
Huge amounts of these apps are largely pointless, and can be replaced with a bookmark and requesting the desktop site.
My tablet has a lot less garbage on it, and I have less privacy concerns with apps which want to access the world just because they say so.
If the native app only really adds more data and ads for them, what value is it to YOU? I've concluded for many of them, they add no value at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Not in the slightest. Already been done in 20 lines of code as I understood it.
I assume it's exactly as broken as Microsoft designed it to be.
Sure it is. And when Linux has the clout to get hardware makers to build stuff they want, then feel free.
In the mean time, Microsoft has achieved exactly what they wanted, and if this is causing Linux to break, then Linux people need to deal with it instead of whining about it ... because the reality is Microsoft doesn't give a crap about you, and isn't going to let the UEFI spec change to help Linux.
This is hardly the first time a new piece of technology Microsoft has pushed has proven to be lacking.
You might as well complain that Adobe should finally abandon Flash because it's crap ... it's been crap for 15+ years, but nobody seems overly concerned.
But don't pretend like throwing a hissy fit about how it's broken is going to change the fact that it's broken. Yes, it's broken by design ... but the people who designed it don't give a damn.
Your choices boil down to: implement it in such a way as to make it less broken, or leave it broken. Expecting the spec to change because it's a problem on Linux just won't happen. Because the people who wrote it have no interest in how it impacts Linux.
Sadness accrues.
Yes, companies get together and foist crap on us because there's something in it for them.
They don't care about competition, they want to maximize profits. If circling the wagons around what MS wants does that for them, that's what you'll get.
But let's not be surprised that markets get skewed by collusion among players in the market. Because that kind of crap pretty much always happens.
No, we have awesome technology ... but if I got excited over every hardware advancement on the front page of Slashdot which was going to completely change some common technology with 5 years ... well, I'd be living in a perpetual state of disappointment.
Technology advances ... getting breathless over all of the things which might be the next big thing, sooner or later you realize there's an awful lot of stuff which doesn't pan out.
If even a quarter of the breakthroughs in Lithium batteries we've seen on Slashdot had ever happened, I'd have a cell phone with a two month battery life.
So you'll excuse me if I've stopped getting excited about things which aren't in production yet, because the difference between a cool thing in a lab and something which is actually going to trickle down to the consumer can be significant.
Because "opens the door to improved mobile phones, nanosatellites, and computers" is a long way from being true.
So, yeah ... wonderment and awe tends to be a casualty of enough years in the tech industry. Film at 11.
So, we can't say this was likely vaporware put up by rip off artists with a long history of failed companies making dubious claims ... but it would appear this is the case.
TFA pretty much reads like these guys are likely shady players with a long history of this:
Someone sounds like they're fairly unambiguously calling these guys con artists.
In some ways yes, but apparently in some ways no.
Years ago a friend was taking German classes, and apparently it has subject/verb stuff which can be at the end of sentences.
So one example of how it fell apart was a place in which the speaker went on for a long time, and the translator just stopped ... because without knowing what was at the end of the long-winded sentence it was impossible know what to say next. It was a lot of stuff which couldn't be translated into English until it was all done -- and it took a VERY long time for that speaker to be done.
I got the impression that are still enough structural differences that it's more than a little challenging for skilled humans to do it.
So, if translating in real time can be near impossible, then I assume it's still damned easy for static translations to get mired down into stuff it can't handle well.
That sounds more like wishful thinking and marketing hype than reality.
Because I know people who routinely deal with situations where people go into data centers to fix stuff.
See, if you build that much redundancy you have to pay for it up front. And in my experience, companies aren't that forward looking.
The hands off data center entirely done remotely? What percent of real situations does that describe? I'm betting it's pretty low.
Well, let me remind you ... the first companies to make black CPU cases, keyboards and mice for standard PCs had people buying it because everything had been beige before that.
Never underestimate how "wow, that looks cool" can be a factor with buying decisions. And never forget that at one point black PCs became super cool.
I remember a bunch of people standing around a new all black Dell going "ooh" and "aaah" over it.
Which meant the original iMac people went crazy over when you could get it in orange.
Apparently, consumers value this kind of stuff, and companies are willing to oblige.
LOL, I let Chrome translate it for me, and I got this:
Which tells me letting Chrome translate stuff from Japanese is a terrible idea.
Yes, yay, science ... but after many many years of "this will revolutionize the world in 5 years", many of us are just sort of numb to it.
Because it never actually seems to happen. So getting all excited about it now seems premature.
I have no doubt they'll fix it, or do something to it ... my point is Microsoft, or any other company, when introducing a piece of software makes the claims of how safe, and secure, and fast, and private, and awesome it is.
But until that's proven in the real world, it's just marketing claims.
So, I don't care who it is ... come out with your new product and claim all those things, and it's a wait and see.
But in the case of Microsoft, whose track record with security doesn't make me automatically think I believe them, I'm going to assume even more that there's no reason to trust the claims. Because over and over we see security is done as an afterthought, falls short, and then people act surprised.
If Adobe suddenly said tomorrow that Flash was now safe and secure, I'd not believe them either, because they have a rather long history of not knowing how to make Flash secure.
And, now ask yourself ... what can you do about that fact?
What's that? Nothing at all because the consortium who defined it doesn't care about what Linux does?
So, yes, UEFI may be broken ... but it may also be that the way Linux is using it is wrong. And here, wrong is defined by "what did the people who built UEFI say?".
I don't give a crap about systemd ... but at the core here, is someone has written code to work with a system they didn't create, and the solution is apparently to either be wrong by being read-only, or be wrong by being read-write.
What you can't do is say "given that both of these solutions are wrong, I'm going with one and blaming the other".
Yeah, whatever, I don't give a crap -- UEFI is a spec which exists separate from Linux. Either you can work with it as it exists, or you can almost kinda sorta work with it except for the corner case in which you break things.
If "rm -rf" breaking things is "by design", then it's a shitty design because it's incorrectly applying a model to something which clearly doesn't apply. But UEFI isn't going to change because Linux wants it to.
I don't give a shit what component it is, it sounds like it's mode of operation is more nuanced than the either/or bullshit I see here -- if doing it all one way or all another way is defective, the problem lies in insisting it still makes sense to do it all one way or all the other.
Grafting a particular way of doing things on top of things which don't work the way you think it does is YOUR DAMNED PROBLEM ... I don't know if it's the kernel, or systemd, or the complete lack of a coherent way of doing this right.
So, I really don't give a damn about your opinion about my posting history ... what I see is people using UEFI in a way that isn't compatible with it, and refusing to fix it.
Go ahead, brick your system, I don't care. But don't pretend like you can ignore how this mechanism is intended to work ... no matter how broken the underlying system is. UEFI wasn't designed to benefit Linux, it was designed to benefit Microsoft.
If Linux can't work with it without shooting themselves in the foot, that's going to have to be something the Linux community deals with.
If it needs to be locked an unlocked in order to get the semantics right, do that. But don't whine when you decide you're not going to do that and it ends up causing problems.
That's called taking the high-ground because fixing it would violate the elegance of their code, and blaming the underlying stuff as inelegant is just easier.
It's one of those mentalities which leas to "I'd rather fuck up your system and lose your data than put a chink in my perfectly elegant solution which causes the problem".
It seems to me if you can fuck up your system by writing to this stuff, and you sometimes need to write to it, you need to have damned good guard code around it, semaphores, and an actual understanding of what you're supposed to do to lock and unlock it.
If mounting read-only is problematic, and mounting read-write is problematic ... then it seems like the solution needs to understand that, and not simply go with one of the two wrong solutions and insisting the problem lies elsewhere.
Otherwise you're just saying "not my problem", and being a dick over your wrong, but otherwise awesomely elegant code.
UEFI exists as it is, and it isn't up to these guys to decree it should change ... nobody consulted them when they built it, they're not going to consult with them in terms of how not to fuck it up.
So, which is it .. UEFI is catastrophically broken, or the way it's implemented is clueless and naive?
Because this sounds so horribly broken it isn't funny.
Actually, no, it's actually quite funny in a big giant "WTF" kind of way.
So, Microsoft came out with brand new technology ... tells us how awesome, secure, and private it is.
And, shockingly, it isn't.
Why anybody is surprised that Microsoft hasn't really got a mature enough product to know how secure it is makes no sense.
Why anybody would believe that after all these years Microsoft suddenly wrote a secure browser is beyond belief.
Did anybody believe Edge was magically safe and secure just because Microsoft said so?
By the same token, I'm not going to trust an app which decides it's going to silently update itself without telling me.
I think it's high on the "software-asshole meter". It says "we'll do anything on your device we choose", and I'm sorry to say, but it's my fucking device.
And since this has huge potential for security exploits and other malicious acts, it's a big risk for users that may not even know it's there.
I'm pretty sure unless you explicitly set Android to automatically update stuff your fix isn't going to get pushed to my device without me knowing it ... and enabling auto-updates is something Microsoft and host of others have demonstrated is idiotic.
Because you really can't trust people who expect to just do a quick fix when nobody is looking. Because in my experience that usually means the software was poorly tested and pushed out the door.
Apple app approval may be "ridiculous" to you, but it beats the alternative of malware, or poorly thrown together code.
Boo hoo, you need to wait weeks ... software cycles used to be FAR longer than that, and overall quality has suffered. Because people expect to push out a steaming turd every few weeks and call themselves agile.
I view software which bypasses approved update mechanisms and just does it in the background as little more than trojans and malware.
I couldn't agree more ... you could do FAR more to educate those kids than spend it on teaching them to code.
How about a $4 billion school lunch program, or extra teachers, or tutoring, or athletics programs, or teaching them all the things they barely have the resources for now?
This is just a huge monkey sink, created as a vanity/legacy project by rich assholes who think the world needs to code, instead of looking what kids actually need.
This isn't really about improving the lives of kids and improving educational outcomes -- this is about the perception of doing something cool and trendy.
But as long as government allows corporations to replace domestic workers with cheap foreign labor, the entire point of this program is being completely undermined.
This is just spending money on the wrong things. Teaching kids to code should not be touted as some cure-all for society, because it's never going to be that.
There's far bigger problems than kids who might never learn to code.
I know, it's a radical and wacky idea, and it will even be controversial ... but, yes.
The sad thing is, for most consumers, they just go "ZOMG teh app" and don't stop to think "what does this really do for me?".
It's like those terrible mobile sites which reditect you away from finding the fucking information you'd come looking for ... if all your mobile version of the web site is keep me from finding what Google sent me here for, your mobile website sucks.
Well, they give themselves an unfair advantage against their competitors, yes ... so if they're going to meter someone else's traffic, they need to meter their own ... or it becomes "nice connection, shame if something happened to it".
If you want net neutrality, not being able to tilt the playing field in your favor is part of that. If you don't want net neutrality, they can just decide to block your Netflix access.
It really is two sides of the same coin, because it prevents them making their service cheaper by virtue of charging you for someone else's traffic, and calling theirs free.
If they'd charge you for the bandwidth from one site, they can't just give you the same bandwidth for free and pretend that's different ... they could use that to put competitors out of business and then charge through the nose.
It's broadcast over public radio waves in the clear ... where does "shouldn't" come into play?
If our cell phones have no expectation of privacy, WTF should the police expect any for?
It's not like it hasn't been perfectly legal to have police scanners for decades. This is just more of the same thing.
No, my narrative hasn't got a fucking thing to do with racism.
After the Dark Ages, where the Church basically did their best to wipe out human knowledge and sanitize everything ... then the descendants of those damned people went about "discovering" everything they had long since forgotten.
The point isn't white, brown, pink or yellow skin ... it's about morons obliterating knowledge and history for their own purposes and then being too clueless to realize they'd just "discovered" things which had been known before.
Self inflicted ignorance isn't some noble thing to hold up for all to see.
Wait, the Vikings discovered it and settled it.
They didn't go around telling people they'd invented it, but they sure as hell 'discovered' it and navigated back and forth.
The entire point is Europeans, after many hundreds of years rooting around in the muck like ignorant morons, rediscovered many things which had been known in antiquity ... and then proceeded to pretend like the barbarians who came before them were far too unsophisticated to have known this stuff.
And increasingly that view of history written to soothe the egos of those Europeans and their descendants is proven to be largely rubbish, which has nothing to do with reality.
And I say this as a white guy of European ancestry -- what we call history is really mostly "the history as told by white people who had no clue about what was really happening before they got their heads out of their asses".
While Europe rooted around in the muck and the filth, they forgot that things like math, navigation, and indoor plumbing had been around for a very long time. And then they pretended like they invented them.
I'm not willing to having streaming only media.
I'm not paying for the bandwidth to listen to every song. I'm not asking some greedy corporation for permission to play the song every time I play it. I'm not providing some greedy corporation with information or data every time I play it. I'm not having some greedy corporation tell me I'm not allowed to listen to my music because I'm on vacation. And I'm sure as hell not allowing some greedy corporation to decide I no longer have access to it.
I'll do what I've always done ... buy the CD, thereby ensuring the artist gets paid, rip the CD into DRM free MP3, and then forever not give a shit what the copyright bastards think.
When I buy CDs I buy them very infrequently, buy a very large quantity in one go (usually 40-50 in a go). I have a large CD collection, and I'm sure as hell not pirating your stuff.
I don't give a damn about your subscription model, your on-going revenue, your permission to play it wherever I choose, or if you think I'm allowed to make backups of it.
Piss off with your subscriptions and your paywall ... I am the guy who still buys music, stop trying to find new ways to make me stop doing it.
How about "wee"?
I decided a while ago on my Nexus tablet I'd uninstall any app which was essentially just a web-page ... because I don't have to worry about ads and permissions.
A shocking amount of apps are just wrappers around the same content as the web page, and just wanted to collect my data and serve up ads.
Huge amounts of these apps are largely pointless, and can be replaced with a bookmark and requesting the desktop site.
My tablet has a lot less garbage on it, and I have less privacy concerns with apps which want to access the world just because they say so.
If the native app only really adds more data and ads for them, what value is it to YOU? I've concluded for many of them, they add no value at all.