I think this is true from the original definition of the word. But decades of one side calling out the other sides propaganda in harsh and negative lighting leaves a negative connotation to the word. Which results in each side avoiding the word for their own messaging and using the word for their opponents messaging. Which further reinforces the negative perception of the word and over decades of people doing this it has left a lot of people thinking it only ever applies to negative or deceptive messaging. And I think this was more impactful in places like the US where there were a lot of political people using the word in a negative way - such as in the big red scare campaign in attacking communist ideas by calling it communist propaganda and similar messaging.

Which is shown by various comments in this post thinking it only applies to negative or deceptive messaging. So I would argue the meaning of the word has or is still changing - as words naturally do over time due to how people use them. Which I think goes a way to answering the OPs question, some places used the word more negatively which gives the people that live in those areas a more negative view on the word. While others have not and so people there have a more neutral take on the word.

Don’t forget about the blue passports!

I think it is for travel and hospitality places. Not something you would typically buy in a shop or liquor store but more a hotel or at an airport or similar.

You counter your own point…

You cannot trust people to do what is right for the environment. They wont do anything until they see the effects for them selves and by then it is far too late to do anything meaningful. And if/when they do finally care all they see is a lot of green washed campaigning by every company claiming to be green when non of them are and they have no real choose and a lot of confusion. You need strict and effective regulation to curve this behavior in companies.

It is not impossible for people at Honda to care. Just not the right people, those that can actually make a difference. The decision makers are all looking for what gives them the most profit, if not then they are not in their position long or, really, never get to a position that matters in the first place.

The only thing that capitalism cares about is profit, by very definition.

You assume they are even going to justify the bare minimum… it is so far in the future they are just hoping everyone will forget about it.

Chinese manufacturers are quite flexible on pricing and quality - all the stuff is not the cheapest lowest quality stuff. One big problem they have though is that a lot of companies that farm out manufacturing to china do it to lower costs - and so opt for the cheapest things they can, then wonder why what they get back is a pile of crap and sell it on anyway.

If you are willing to pay more then the quality can actually be very good. At lot of things things you think of as good quality are still made in china or at least parts of it are.

Cannot read the full article due to paywall… but what is up with that tagline:

China is building (fission) nuclear reactors faster than any other country

Can its scientists solve the fusion problem?

What does the fusion problem have to do with fission reactors? They are completely opposite things and fission reactors cannot be converted to fusion ones nor any other way I can see helps with fusion at all… Like the tag line seems to be heavily implying. I don’t see how these two things are related, and I bet the article does not explain, does it?

Not surprising since car manufacturers lobbied to get them classed as light trucks to dodge the stricter emissions and safety regulations that apply to general cars. Then marketed the hell out of them as there is more profit to be made due to them not needing to comply with as many regulations. And now they are everywhere and are way worst than cars in almost every way.

Funny how yet again the capitalist class chooses profits over any other metric leading to s shittier world overall. Almost like there is a pattern happening in every industry…

At thins point I am starting to think they are more pro-suffering

No. So many things are miss represented in movies and TV or skipped entirely in the name of entertainment.

On rough ground that would put a lot of stress in the landing system and likely the rest of the plane. Small cracks in things can lead to catastrophic failure later on even if everything looks fine now. Would you want to take a chance on that?

Not to mention they have to get it out of the field. That alone is probably not worth the effort to save a possibly compromised frame.

This is a design issue that teachers cannot be expected to simply “fix” for society.

Yes, which a ban wont help to fix at all either - at least not in the long term. Education IMO is still an important part of fixing society though, especially if you can get to children before they have phones ingrained into their lives. But I don’t think this is on teachers alone to fix - it needs to be more systemic changes in education systems. At the very least far more (or any) research needs to be done to find actual effective measures that we could do.

But equally, if not more important is also working to fix other areas outside of education, like regulating how much businesses can exploit us.

There are no quick or easy or even single answer here. Defiantly not just an out right ban with no other plans in place to actually fix the systemic issues at play.

He added: “We completely understand the legitimate concerns around the use of mobile phones, including cyberbullying, the impact of extended screen time on mental health, and the lack of regulation of big technology companies. The fact is though that the widespread use of smartphones is a societal issue and problems that result from this are more likely to arise outside of the school gates.”

Banning phones in school does not help to fix any of this. At most it just pushes it to the rest of their lives. Maybe we should be looking at educating our children about these topics, not ignoring them for as long as possible…

I think this shows that adults are terribly addicted to their devices and think if they can’t stop using them, children won’t either. They certainly can’t teach how to use phones responsibly if they can’t do it themselves. Unfortunately for children the result is an outright ban.

Yeah, so we need to tackle the problem in some way, not just ignoring it with a ban. A ban teaches them nothing about how to use their devices responsibly. Additionally - the probably should be some legislation on what tech companies are doing here as well. Things like facebook pushing any content it can for more views even if they have shown to have negative impacts on peoples mental health is something that really should be regulated. Profits at the expense of peoples mental health should not be allowed.

Good security is a component to privacy. But you can have good security with no privacy - that is the whole idea of a surveillance state (which IMO is a horrifying concept). Both are worth having, but my previous responses were only about the security aspect of OSS. There are many other good arguments to have about the benefits of OSS, but increased security is not a valid one.

Yup, all reasons why it does not matter if the software is open or closed as to how secure it might be. Both open and closed source code can be developed in a more or less secure fashion. Just because something could be done does not mean it has been done.

What about the various NPM packages written by one guy. Who then moved on to other things then gave control of that package to someone else that seemed legit. Only for them to slowly add melicious code to that once trusted package that is used by a large number of other packages?

Or someone raising a pull request for a new feature or something that on the surface looks legit on its own. But when combined with other PRs or existing code ends up in a vulnerability that can be exploited.

Also, just because you can see the source code does not mean it has been audited, and just because you cannot see the source code does not mean it has not been audited. A company has a lot more money to spend on hiring people and external teams to audit their code (without needing to reverse engineer it). More so than some single developer does for their OSS project, even if most of the internet relies on it (see openssl).

Those implications being, don’t trust big corporations as they will round you up and dump you over the side of a cliff to sell sad story and profit off your suffering? Yup, I agree, seems appropriate here.