None of that stuff really seems that difficult or time consuming. I think the danger of being in the position of a stay-at-home mom is that your partner can abandon you at any time and leave you with the full burden and no financial support.

I think the problem really stems from a lack of suitable men rather than the role itself

> I think the danger of being in the position of a stay-at-home mom is that your partner can abandon you at any time and leave you with the full burden and no financial support.

Really? Where do you live? Here in the UK if a married couple splits in that situation the stay at home mum (or dad for that matter) would get either half the assets plus spousal maintenance, or (and the courts prefer this to give a "clean break") more than half the assets to make up for the reduced income. The assets include all "marital assets" such as a house, pension funds etc. regardless of whose name they are held in. On top of that there is child maintenance until children are 18. The spouse looking after the children would usually get the marital home until they grow up (after which it might be sold and the proceeds split).

That is not true for unmarried couples (although the government is considering changing the law). However as the article uses the word "wife" I am assuming married. This is really the main reason marriage is a legal status rather than being only a religious or social one.

> your partner can abandon you at any time and leave you with the full burden and no financial support.

Yes, absolutely. Or that a financially-dependent partner (I'm deliberately not applying gender), even without kids (though children massively raise the stakes), can become trapped in an abusive relationship.

I'm going to wade into political waters, by pointing out that this is a wider problem that can be addressed at the societal level. When the full burden of all poor outcomes is placed upon unsupported individuals, then individuals in aggregate respond by making more-cautious decisions - whether that's to stay in an abusive relationship, avoid having children, have fewer children, or avoid relationships altogether. The same could be pointed out for the choice between, eg, choosing corporate employment vs trying entrepreneurship. A society that insulates its citizens against some downside risks allows individuals more agency over their own lives.

perhaps but this is about device/os attestation, not rooting

How does their web site do device attestation? The argument that apps have to be locked behind a validation mechanism controlled by Google to be secure is BS when a cookie is sufficient.

I totally disagree. The same factory would be made infeasible without the tariff.

What do we need that shouldn't make domesticially?

I'm telling you as a fact that as someone working for a manufacturing startup the tariffs have only made things more expensive for us. But I'm sure the Cleveland Cliffs execs are doing great.

Tariffs hurt domestic manufacturing for a number of reasons, but one of the major ones is because something like 50% of our manufacturing inputs are imported.

it's a hardware problem, you run into engineering, materials, and physics issues. we're not talking about reverse engineering software

yeah, haven't you heard AI is magic.

It fundamentally has the same capabilities as the original iphone. You can browse the web, check your emails, watch movies, play simple games.

The only difference is that now you can play graphicially intense desktop-style games, but no one really does that. And also it has some sattelite phone functionality. The cameras are also better, the battery life is better, but it all doesnt fundamentally change the way you use it. The complexity over last year's smartphone is unnessisary.

Now that everyone in the world is basicially required to use a smartphone, the only way for big smartphone to make more revenue is to sell each consumer more smartphone per smartphone.

You're correct. Ultimately 99% of the stuff you do on a phone is identical to 10 years ago. I know exactly 0 zero phone gamers. I do know some who play, like, the pokemon trading card game.

Cameras have improved, but less than you think. Most of the improvement is in low-light, but in well lit scenes we actually sort of peaked 10 years ago. It's gotten slightly worse now, believe it nor not.

But you can't legitimately run a phone from 10 years ago, because while everything is the same, the software uses 100x as many resources. That sort of tricks people into thinking "oh it must be doing so much more!"

But... is it? Think back. Instagram 10 years ago, YouTube 10 years ago. Yeah... it's basically the same. Some argue they've regressed. I'm sure we've more than 10x the code size, but nobody sees that.

Web browsers have also gotten much more complex, but again, you won't notice it. We have a lot more fringe web APIs like webusb but like... the regular web browsing experience for 99% of tasks is identical.

I think there have been some niceities in web apis like webgpu, websocket, webrtc, PWAs. But they are limited in weird ways, and the fingerprinting has never been worse

Not everything is dual use. Some information technology grossly favors centralization or decentralization of power based on the type of information problem it solves.

Cryptocurrency is clearly a counterexample to your main point. The fact that some people use cryptocurrency tech to implement centrally managed private currencies is largely irrelevant. To the extent that cryptocurrencies are used to implement private currencies, it largely just hampers them technolgicially if it has any effect at all. These projects just like to use the term cryptocurrency to imply some level of legitimate decentralization or security that doesn't really exist.

It's like saying that because you can use a screwdriver as a weapon, it's inherently a destructive technology (or some mixture of destructive and constructive). On closer inspection it's clear that the screwdriver doesn't sit on the pareto front for weapons, but it does sit on the pareto front for manufacturing tools. So a screwdriver is clearly a technology whose existence favors construction over destruction. Similarly I would argue that technology like bittorrent or bitcoin favor decentralization over centralization.

As another example, surveilance technology favors centralization. None of what we are seeing now with flock would be possible without cheap mass produced digital cameras. The balance of technology favors cheap cameras (and counter-surveilance is often impossible or expensive) and it favors centralization because you need a lot of data to create inferences based on this spurrious data.

If we could have predicted these effects, perhaps we could have delayed the development of cheap cameras, but it just goes to show how complicated this game is. We could just as easily have said that more cameras would lead to unprecedented public transparency (e.g. bodycams on cops, dash cams). Unintended consequences.