Update

update_culture.md

@@ -15,8 +15,9 @@ Software updates are usually justified by "muh [security](security.md)" and "muh
 - **It is a form of software [consumerism](consumerism.md)**, even if the updates themselves are gratis, they always come at a cost such as potential unstability, requiring new hardware, forcing installing more dependencies, required learning to use the new version, or even dropping of old features and malicious code in the updates.
 - **It is dangerous**, updates regularly break things, and there are cases where a lot depends on software running smoothly.
 - It is [bullshit](bullshit.md) effort, **wasting human work and creating an intentionally high [maintenance](maintenance.md) cost**. Humans, both users and programmers, become slaves to the software.
-- **The [security](security.md) justifications are lies**: a true concern for security would lead to unbloating and creating a minimal, stable and well tested software. Update culture in fact constantly pushes newly created vulnerabilities with the updates which are only better in not having been discovered yet, i.e. relying on **security by obscurity**. This creates an intentionally **endless cycle of creating something that will never be finished** (even if it well could be).
-- **It kills freedom**. E.g. with the example of web the constant meaningless updates of JavaScript and addition of "features" eliminates any small competition that can't afford to keep up with the constantly changing environment. **This is why we have no good web browsers**.
+- **The [security](security.md) justifications are just pure lies**: a true concern for security would lead to unbloating and creating a minimal, stable and well tested software. Update culture is the exact opposite, it in fact constantly pushes newly created vulnerabilities with the updates which are only better in not having been discovered yet, i.e. relying on **security by obscurity**. This creates an intentionally **endless cycle of creating something that will never be finished** (even if it well could be).
+- **It kills [freedom](freedom.md)**. E.g. with the example of web the constant meaningless updates of JavaScript and addition of "features" eliminates any small competition that can't afford to keep up with the constantly changing environment. **This is why we have no good web browsers**.
 - **It is painful for the user** while at the same time being unnecessary, i.e. it's plainly artificial discomfort forced on users. The user has to keep caring about his software like some kind of [tamagotchi](tamagotchi.md), becoming a slave to it.
-- **It creates a mindset of not aiming to [finish](finished.md) anything** and normalizing this -- developers accept they release unfinished software, users accept they use unfinished software, society depends on technology that's not been finished, is buggy, unstable, randomly changing from one day to another etcetc.
-- **It is actually a huge security risk** (yes, we don't really buy intro security but this still holds). The developer, whoever it is, has the power to remotely push and execute any code at any time to the devices of many users. In fact this can be seen as the definition of [backdoor](backdoor.md). This is not just an issue of [proprietary](proprietary.md) software, there have been many [FOSS](foss.md) projects pushing [malware](malware.md) this way (look up e.g. the projects that targeted malware at Russians during the Russia-Ukraine war).
+- **It creates a mindset of not aiming to [finish](finished.md) anything** and [normalizes](normalization.md) this -- developers accept they release unfinished software, users accept they use unfinished software, society depends on technology that's not been finished, is buggy, unstable, randomly changing from one day to another etcetc. Update culture has a similar effect to the cancerous economic effect of [inflation](inflation.md) that prevents you from saving up money: it destroys anything that becomes static, not allowing to establish any stability.
+- **It is actually a huge security risk** (yes, we don't really buy intro security but this still holds). The developer, whoever it is, has the power to remotely push and execute any code at any time to the devices of many users. In fact this can be seen as the definition of [backdoor](backdoor.md). This is not just an issue of [proprietary](proprietary.md) software, there have been many [FOSS](foss.md) projects pushing [malware](malware.md) this way (look up e.g. the projects that targeted malware at Russians during the Russia-Ukraine war).
+- ...