866
Unremovable Spyware on Samsung Devices Comes Pre-installed on Galaxy Series Devices
(cybersecuritynews.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
866 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
77329 readers
2817 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Please fill in the blanks:
"More prosperous" means absolutely nothing historically or ethically, or worse it typically means "aligned with imperialist hegemons".
I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you consider human well-being to be irrelevant!
What a pointlessly hostile and asshole way to make your point! Did it feel good? I'll try to refrain from doing the same.
What "prosperity" means in this context is typically just amassed wealth and GDP, which says nothing about how well the population is actually doing.
Under which definition of prosperity (whether that being the well-being of the population or "alignment with imperial powers") is North Korea doing better?
You made it sound like the answer depends on the definition of "prosperity" so I'm wondering under which definition the answer would be different.
I said literally: it means absolutely nothing historically or ethically, or worse it typically means "aligned with imperialist hegemons".
Do I need to explain to you what that means, or do you have a clue about South Korean history and US foreign policy?
But what then does it mean, or rather should it mean according to you? So far you've only cast confusion on what the question means, but you haven't provided your view on what it should mean then.
There's two issues. The one is that prosperity is already very ambiguous, and in the context of nations we usually default to easily measurable things like GDP. This doesn't define human well-being which is actually not so easy to measure. Look at the US as the richest nation on earth for a stark example. The question was asked in this way and without this clarification for a reason.
But the bigger issue is that it's just the wrong question to ask. Any definition of prosperity for one massive people can be built upon the cruel subjugation and exploitation of others. And that's exactly what happened and continues to happen under the "former" global colonial powers, as well as aligned governments (which includes a lot of puppets). Hence US foreign policy. Celebrating this as a victory of capitalism is either clueless or outright malicious.
If you don't feel like stating your opinion on which country is better off and why, then you could just say that outright or say nothing. You really don't have to go to all of this trouble to pontificate about how it is unreasonable to even consider the matter. 😜
So prosperity for one people is worth any price to you?
I will take from your attempt to throw a "Gotchya!" at me that you acknowledge that you are unwilling to state your own opinion on the matter.
The question itself was a cheap gotcha. Shockingly, it's not as simple as that as I've been pointing out. Which you'd acknowledge if you were arguing in good faith.
It's unfortunate that any attempt to insert some nuance automatically makes me the enemy in your simplistic position on the matter. And now ego prevents you from backing off of this kind of thinking by any means, no matter what toxic and regressive conclusions it takes you to.
If it makes you feel better, you are emphatically not my enemy. 😀
I think that's a fairly cynical take of the question that was asked. I'm not sure which peoples are being subjugated and exploited in South Korea. And in the context of North Korea, I'm not sure what your exact point is with regards to oppression, as it seems that issue is much more severe there.
The question remains: what should the question have been then? Population happiness then? Life expectancy? How would you measure which country is doing better, and in which comparison does NK come out on top over SK?
I didn't say the people of South Korea are being subjugated. Not sure how I could have made clearer that these are two separate issues.
You also won't find me defending NK. Not everything should devolve into tribalism and dunking on whatever we perceive as the other team. Which is exactly what I'm criticizing about this question and the way it was asked.
Quote the comment that started all of this:
I acknowledge that this is not your comment, but you stepped in and answered a question directed at this person, so you should not act so surprised that you have become associated with their position, especially since you continue to work really hard to do everything except actually state your own opinion, except insofar that "everything is too complicated for anyone to have an opinion" counts as an opinion.
Yeah it was asked in bad faith and framed in a manipulative way.
That's not a good thing and should be called out, no matter if you disagree with the person it was directed at. It's called integrity.
Generally when one refers to a country as being "occupied", the implication is that the people there are poor off as a result, especially relative to a neighboring country whose land is presumably being considered occupied, which in this case is implicitly North Korea due to the history of how the two countries split. It is therefore not in bad faith to directly ask whether the people there are better or worse off as a result.
You also seem to be hyper-fixated on one possible meaning of prosperous, which is "wealth and GDP", when there are lots of other means related to flourishing in general. The original commenter was perfectly free to provide an answer along the lines of, "North Korea is the more prosperous country because X." where X is a list of ways in which the people there are flourishing, and this would have been a valid answer (if not necessarily a correct one).
Alternatively, if they think that South Korea is better off but this does not matter because it is still less ethical than North Korea, then they could have taken the opportunity to be up front about that.
So in short, this question could have been used in all sorts of ways to provide an answer that clarified the commenter's position. It is a shame that we never heard from them exactly what their thoughts were.
I mean, in the way it was asked not really. It was explicitly asked, or rather condescendingly demanded, as a simple binary choice stripped of all context.
That's not how you engage with someone when you actually want to get their take on a complex issue. That's how you engage if you want to score an easy win for upvotes. And I for one am done with that kinda hostile "debate bro" culture / popularity contest that's defined many subreddits over the years. It shuts down any chance for an actual exchange. So let's not act surprised at the result.
I appreciate you showing me how not to make a point in "a pointlessly hostile and asshole way"!
Yeah I guess you got me down to your level.
So now only the difference remains that I didn't misconstrue your point on purpose to score a cheap dunk.
"Neither" is also an acceptable answer.