jonpaine

4-5 seconds on your machine? Check for a button usually next to the power button on the CPU labeled “turbo” and give it a click. Might help.

Personally, I'm kind of amused by the appalled and horrified tech bloggers I see posting about the sky falling. I keep reading about "life long" Apple users threatening to switch ecosystems because of an SD card slot. Or function keys. I mean, people must step through A LOT OF CODE to have that impact this kind of decision.

My perspective is biased by my moving in the opposite direction. I'm just in the process of considering a transition TO Apple after being a lifelong windows user. My current build is a top of the line XPS 15 (2015). It's... disappointing. The touchpad already broke. I went through at least 3 warranty visits before the wifi finally worked halfway decent. Windows is becoming less and less what I want it to be. I use it purely for coding, but when I do jump online for a few minutes it manages to be slower than my ipad. Basically, I want a simple, fast, productivity OS that just works (sorry). I don't want it to show me ads and I'm beyond the point where I derive any satisfaction whatsoever from tinkering or configuring it to be perfect. I just want it to work well and work consistently.

Although consensus seems to be that their software is getting worse, from what I see it feels like Apple is the one making the devices that can accomplish what I'm looking for - and a big part of that is the hardware. Still, I'm interested to hear what people say about elementary OS.

It appears that the Startup/issuer sets a static offering price [0]. When I envision how crowdsourced investing would reinvent this space, a huge component of the value added would be a degree of price-elasticity and feedback. It doesn't have to be a full-on auction, but getting the pricing right (for the issuer) seems like THE killer feature here... (thinking back to the concept of how Google priced their IPO )[1]. Offering a product that facilitated more innovative pricing structures at offering would be extremely compelling - and would greatly increase Republic.co's target market as well.

[0] https://republic.co/learn/issuers/how_it_works [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108328345314098183 (potential paywall)

Neither of those two features have been released by Apple.

Am I misunderstanding you?

SF's legendary rent control creates a clear incentive for landlords to use a service like Airbnb to continually rent at market rate (though lower occupancy rate) while maintaining control to allocate the unit as they see fit. Renting a unit in sf both freezes rental revenue and removes the owners control to reallocate the unit.

Did you mean something else?

WPEngine, who were just recently compromised and only finally announced 2FA less than two weeks ago...

Other than that, I don't disagree with your point. :)

Really?

If a well-funded superpac would systematically and indefinitely try every legal exploit to re-enact slavery you'd be grinning each attempt because "democracy"? ....

The idea that our form of government allows us the freedom to resist predatory laws is inspiring, the necessity to fight that fight... over and over again... is the best representation that true freedom is delicate.

To protect that freedom we need to hold critical thinking above all else to guard ourselves against the faux intellectualism of statements like yours.

It's disgusting that we treat humans like this. A reasonable person can understand perspectives on both sides of many contemporary hot topics, but I see no such leeway here.

Isn't it time we stand up and simply fix something which is so clearly broken?

I don't disagree with you. I'm not being an Apple apologist, just commenting why from their viewpoint it makes sense to bring the very best features into the fold of standard, native, functionality.

A big part of Apple's product appeal is the ecosystem, and a big part of the ecosystem is that amazing features simply work, and work well. They don't have to be configured or hunted for. Taken a step further, the problems some of these new features solve don't even have to be fully apparent to the user.

To that end, Apple improves their ecosystem by making good features standard. Tim Cook mentioned that there were 1 billion Apple devices in circulation. How many of those do you think have users that were even aware of the existence of those two apps? Or even the problem that they address?

I'm not a fan of any bigCo squashing innovative software (and I'm certainly not defending it), but there's no question that in cases like this bringing that feature into the fold leads to a better user experience across the board. To those of us who knew the circumstances it might be cringeworthy, but for the other 98% of users it's just another advance in a progression of features that keeps the ecosystem's user-experience better than any other.

That's right. However, there are still indexes, even if they aren't necessary for traversal. Ideally you'll use an index to find a start node and traverse on from there (or in the case of your question, update from there).

Index-free-adjacency.

There are myriad pros/cons between graph/relational/nosql, but to me, a "real" graph db will have index free adjacency, allowing it to do deep traversals (friend of a friend-of a friend-oaf-oaf....) in constant time. It finds it's value in traversal of deeply connected datasets.

Any article or comparison that doesn't at least try to explain index free adjacency isn't going to make a compelling case for a graphdb, let along a native graph db. One reason for that may be that many "graph" databases don't have index free adjacency, so have worst than expected deep traversal characteristics.

Perhaps the average user is more tech and social-tech savvy now than then. That would be my guess. It feels like there are a lot of things now that seem intuitive that would've been a bridge too far for the average user to figure out 6 years ago.

VERY interesting. Thanks for posting. I wasn't familiar with CALEA.

For clarity, a CALEA type approach wouldn't compel a company to ACTIVELY subvert their own systems (as in Apple creating new tools for the Gov't to achieve that end under All Writs).

Instead, CALEA would force companies to create LESS secure systems from the start which could then be subverted passively (no All Writs component) on request to allow for "lawful intercept". Is that a fair characterization?

But in sum, a legal argument based on CALEA. Makes sense. Thanks-

Ha - thanks. :) I'll watch it. But I'm specifically asking here because I'm trying to understand and learn from the rational arguments. There's never a challenge finding inflammatory or disingenuous ones, and there's not much to learn from them either (on either side of most topics - not unique to this one).

Thanks for writing -

The 'legal warrants' part that you said is interesting. I'm not sure I'd heard that thought clearly articulated. The idea that when a legal warrant is issued the Gov't should have access to everything. Something to consider.

OK - thanks for the input!

Can someone ELI5 a typical opinion in support of the Government's case? I've read through various comments and I haven't seen a concise opinion in favor and am genuinely curious.

Does it boil down to (1) trust that the Government won't abuse the existence of the tool and (2) trust that the tool will never be leaked?

Or is it more fundamental - that the target data is so valuable that the ends justify the means?

I know it's more nuanced than that, but I think - in particular -someone's view on the All Writs component just follows their view on the above in most cases.

[edit]: I'm considering this a research sub-thread, not a debate sub-thread. Trying to understand, not convince. So forgive me for not responding one way or the other.

Very well put!

It's not that specific. It's everywhere. I see it all the time in programming terminology.

There are technical terms that annoy me when I first hear them. It appears people are trying to inflate their worth by using unnecessarily specific or complicated terms. Then on some random night when I'm bored I'll familiarize myself with the term and all its' nuances and from that point forward it's more efficient to use the formerly-annoying-and-seemingly-high-and-mighty term to communicate exactly what I mean in a single word or phrase.

That's just how language works. But like anything, some folks will latch onto anything to inflate what they bring to the table by over-complicating things.

Thankfully the divining rod for weeding these people out is often as simple as asking them two to three questions on the topic to discern if they're leveraging their vocabulary or hiding behind it.

I'm intrigued by the idea/necessity of some "non-omniscience" factor in weighing 4th amendment cases moving forward.

The argument is always that they're only tracking the "same views enjoyed by passersby on public roads", attempting to create a false equivalence between a camera and a human.

This has always been a pet peeve of mine, because there are factors that nullify the projected equivalence: each of these 'passersby' on the public road can only be in one place at one time. They are not omniscient. Further, there is an assumed limit to the amount of data they can collect (what can one person see from that street corner) and an assumed cost to the collection of that data (and therefore: even a government is limited in the scope of collection; they can't place an agent infront of every house on every street). These were the assumptions present in the time of the writing of the amendment. These assumptions only apply to the economics of humans, not cameras, and materially changes the effect of the law in the present day.

Courts will need a mechanism to articulate that a camera is not equivalent to a passerby. It's not a question of function, it's a question of scope. Much like anti-trust laws or regulations against cornering economic markets don't differentiate based on function, but the scope of the function. When it comes to privacy - the kind that the Fourth Amendment was written to protect - yes, placing agents on corners is substantially different than placing cameras on corners.

A lottery ticket doesn't buy a chance, it buys a pleasant daydream. It buys a mental escape hatch. It buys the 'what would I do' game for another week.

A movie costs $12 in a theater for 2 hrs of enjoyment. A lottery ticket costs $1 for a week of intermittent enjoyment. For certain segments of the population, a lottery ticket is a downright bargain.

Math problems are easy. Real world problems are difficult.

As an aside, it's so important that people who care enough about a social challenge like the lottery/gambling addiction are able to find the ACTUAL root cause to address. I'm not blaming the LA Times. I LOVE content like this - and not all content needs a purpose. BUT - if the purpose was supposed to be helping people who play the lottery see their folly, this probably isn't the right tack.

I can't help but think politics whenever I read an article like this. Invariably, I always end up at the same place: Human governance structures are complicated.

On one hand, we have Winston Churchill: 'The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter'.

On the other hand, it feels like an unalienable right of a human to have equal say with their peers on decisions effecting the community.

And after considering both, my mind wanders to type 1 and type 2 errors. Humans can be savages. I find solace in a system that minimizes persecution of innocents - even if solely through bureaucracy that cools tempers through inefficiency.

These aren't easy questions. I feel like the ease and speed of the dissemination of information has fundamentally shifted the inputs to the info-political balance in a way which we, as a society, haven't yet accounted and balanced the system for.

Voters are constantly bombarded with soundbites, ads, opinion pieces posing as news... what's the use of a representative republic when engineered information can be disseminated as broadly and quickly as it is now?

The use, as it always was, is knowledge and judgment. But now more than ever, inundated with "news", meticulously crafted and expediently delivered with intent to obscure and persuade for one side or another.. we need to be able to vote for a representative whose opinions and judgement we trust.

....

Human governance structures are complicated.

Please make sure your loops converge. I read and modified this paragraph 3,984 times and then crashed.

I agree. That's a great little writeup - thanks for posting it.

Apple is a premium* brand. They don't make commodity products.

I think there are better articles out there than this one [0], but it was the first search result.

Thinking about their behaviors through that lens is interesting and, to me, clarifies a lot of the strategy behind some of their actions. Fun stuff.

[0] http://www.cnbc.com/2013/10/15/apple-is-a-luxury-brand-not-a... AUTO PLAY NON-MUTED VIDEO WARNING

I think that's exactly why openCypher is happening. A robust and widely adopted openCypher is a good thing for users - but also for neo technology.

The database is called NEO(for java). All the examples are graphs of relationships in The Matrix, or of movies in general.

Cypher is named for the character in the movies. :)

I think the 'Graph' in GraphQL confuses people. GraphQL is no more relevant to a graph database than it is to a relational database. It is an intermediary that facilitates efficient communication by standardizing req/res structure.

So, for people more comfortable with SQL, your question could just as well be "what can SQL do that GraphQL can't"?

The answer is, of course, that they occupy different domains and have different functions. Both can do lots of things that the other can't.

My wife and I quit our SF Bay Area jobs and traveled for a little over 2 years. We backpacked abroad, restored a VW Bus and drove it around the US, and explored the Bahamas on our sailboat.

One of my biggest takeaways from our trip - which I think is extremely relevant to the message here - is that my goal will never be to NOT work. Not ever - even in retirement. The consensus strategy of spending 40+ hours of every week of your life saving up so you can enjoy retirement is, to me, a broken model. We met so many people who followed that model only to realize they didn't have the health or energy to enjoy all that they had worked a lifetime for. It's heartbreaking.

Work is a GOOD thing. The preferred solution - and I realize this is a high bar that we're beyond fortunate to even consider(more on that at the end) - is to find something you're passionate about and you wake up every day wanting to do. Obviously that's the old cliche of just doing what you love, but it turns out I'm one of those dullards who has to learn some of the cliche life-pro-tips through experience to truly understand them.

I'm a solo founder on a business that's just entering private beta, so I know first-hand that there's an entirely different discussion about delayed gratification and working at an unsustainable pace in the short term to build something meaningful in the long term... and that gets complicated. There's no rule of thumb that I know of.

I could write a book about this discussion, but in sum: I LOVE codingdave's comment, because he used two words that my wife and I ALWAYS use when discussing this: "conscious" and "choices". These words came up in every discussion we had on our travels when the topic came up. The people we met out there didn't get there by accident. They get there because they made choices. They lived below their means. They saved. They learned new skills. They took leaps of faith. VERY few of them were wealthy.

When we talk about this, I usually start to say that everything in life is a choice; that we ALWAYS have choices, but the sad reality is that isn't true for most people. I won't turn this into a political discussion, but will simply say that it would be amazing to live in a world where even the poorest of the poor have palatable choices that they can realistically make. In our current world, those of us who ARE fortunate enough to have some palatable choices can work towards making that a reality. For those that would call that a pipe-dream, there are easily identifiable challenges like affordable childcare that are super-realistic and would go a long way in the right direction. There are amazing organizations already doing great work in that sphere.

My business is somewhat tied to this topic. It's mentioned in my comment history.

PS: A grandfathered unlimited 4g plan and a cradlepoint is GOLD on the road. :)

For clarity, stating the difference between the two is beneficial. "TV" is a single-channel system, in that the user has a single input to control their output: which channel. 1:1. "The Internet" has a much broader range of control, simply by the mechanism of processing input before sending output. No longer is input:output 1:1.

Honestly, I'm disappointed this even made it to the front page. "who will win" TV vs internet is no longer a legitimate or interesting question. Unless we're having a business or politics discussion about industries lobbying their way to success, there's is no room for rational disagreement about who will win. The internet will continue to cannibalize TV from the bottom up (or the top down if you want to go by ratings).

I had a Diamond Rio pmp300 32MB mp3 player in 1998. An iPod didn't come out for 3 years. An iPhone didn't come out for 9 years. Even though the Diamond only held 8 songs, I knew the SECOND I hit play that every other mobile audio technology was dead. It was just a matter of time.

I think sometimes - subconsciously - we believe too much in the efficient market - that if we see an opportunity for arbitrage that WE must be wrong - the market must have already accounted for it. But that's just how things work... sometimes very obviously correct concepts take awhile to actually take hold.

TV already lost. It will just take the world a few years to realize it.