153
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 57 points 1 month ago

Well, and with the Trump admin incoming: they're not wrong. The FCC will probably be gone within two years.

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 month ago

It won’t be gone. How else will they make good on their threat of shutting down media companies that say things they don’t like?

[-] RangerJosie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Ministry of Truth?

[-] yonder@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago

Cell jammers for everyone!

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 1 month ago

that's a felony lol

and trust me... state will defend a "legal" person's financial interest than they would defend a shiti organic person's life.

[-] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago

lol

I wish the FCC would lighten up the amateur radio rules tho. Cool stuff like Meshtastic is happening outside of licenced bands and is taking off

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month ago

better get more equipment for it before the tariffs kick in

[-] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Or we could actually make some stuff in the US/EU for a change. I know it takes time but it's probably for the best in the long run

[-] Clent@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Tell me you don't know how the global economy works without telling me you don't know how the global economy works.

[-] joeldebruijn@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Tell me you dont know how supply lock-in is a tool for geopolitics without telling me you dont know how supply lock-in is a tool for geopolitics.

[-] Clent@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Looks like you're the one confused here. Supply lock-in means what exactly to you?

This appears to be a term you made up. What is supply lock-in returns no results.

Perhaps you mean vendor lock-in which is actually what I am talking about and you don't understand what vendor lock-in means.

[-] joeldebruijn@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

We as a species make up terms on a daily basis, so I feel the liberty to do the same. Glad it doesnt give any results because it indicates original thought.

If large parts of the supply chain consist of suppliers (vendors) on the other side of the earth, one can focus on one vendor lock-in or one by one (for analytical purposes) and optimise for that but often the bigger picture of a complex supply chain is missed.

Hence the aggregated lock-in.

But to avoid futher confusion maybe supply-chain lock-in is a better term and yields searchs results.

[-] Clent@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Just to be clear here, you made up a term and then claimed I didn't know that term. And rather than address that you are glad that term doesn't exist.

Tell me you are a never wrong without telling me you're a never wrong.

[-] joeldebruijn@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

Only thing I claimed was you missed the point of SomeAmateur, meaning one can understand global supply chain AND worry about depending on foreign entities using it in geo-politics, so mentioning counter measures (make some stuff ourselves for a change) is reasonable. I am wrong all the time by the way, I just adress a lot more in my comments which you choose to ignore. But alas, you are free to pick and choose just like everybody else.

[-] emuspawn@orbiting.observer 0 points 1 month ago
[-] Clent@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago

Learn to understand search results?

That's showing results for vendor lock-in.

This is a stupid hill to die on, why are several of you choosing to do so?

None of you have any idea what is required to build and even the simplest electronic product.

[-] emuspawn@orbiting.observer 1 points 1 month ago

Supply chains are literally chains of suppliers, e.g. vendors. Your 'simplest electronic product' could absolutely be constrained by whom you choose to work with.

If your vendor locks you into buying from a certain source, and their vendor requires the same, and so on up the chain, how would you describe that dynamic to differentiate from a single vendor being the point of restriction?

To your point that the phrase didn't exist, here are three supply-chain oriented papers that directly reference the phrase: This paper is exploring the social dynamics of buyers and sellers:

Lock-in situations in supply chains: A social exchange theoretic study of sourcing arrangements

Specifically, we believe that the examination of lock-in situations between a manufacturer and its supplier, i.e., instances where for all intent and purposes, one party is heavily dependent upon the other party, with few alternatives, under social exchange theory, can provide new insights into controlled self-interest behaviors (e.g., strategies) in on-going supply chain relationships.

This paper is about supply chains in plastic management, but the phrase is here:

Business models and sustainable plastic management: A systematic review of the literature

Barriers frequently mentioned were high costs, complexity of new systems, supply chain lock-in and low customer buy-in.

And here's a paper about optimizing your supply chain where it is referenced as something to avoid:

Orchestrating cradle-to-cradle innovation across the value chain

This one even has a handy definition:

Supply chain lock-in:

Contracts and strong dependencies with suppliers not supporting circularity (e.g., either due to non-willingness or lock-in in production facilities optimized for linear concepts). 

I suppose if you would like to be super extra pendantic Wikipedia does have you covered with "Collective Monopolistic Vendor Lock-in".

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

More likely they'll close all those bands so that corpos can use them for profit.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

It won't be gone, it'll be used to ensure the most powerful companies in the country never, ever, have any legitimate competition, and can do whatever the fuck they want. They'll write whatever laws these companies want. They'll make it illegal to try to start a new telecom.

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 1 month ago

They'll make it illegal to try to start a new telecom.

They already did in some states at least for municipalities... aint "free" market grand?

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 11 points 1 month ago

They can fuck you and the federal government lets them...

[-] Idontevenknowanymore@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago

When will we have privacy protection? Or yeah, never.

this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
153 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

32482 readers
226 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS