nathankunicki

I don't. Making something popular requires a tonne of work. Again, this has always been the case, even for traditional physical products. If you're going to make a competitor for something, expect an uphill battle.

As I said, there were social networks before Twitter, Facebook, and Parler, and there will be social networks afterwards.

Anyone can start a social media network. Twitter has competition in the form of the relatively-new Parler, which has welcomed controversial voices - and has gained significant traction among them.

You can feel free to create your own too. Social media platforms existed before Twitter and Facebook, and eventually other platforms will succeed Twitter and Facebook.

Can it be expensive to start a company from scratch? Yes, it can. But that has always been the case.

Then nationalize them or make them a public and/or Government agency (in a fair market fashion, by petitioning the Government to make them an offer to buy them out). But as long as they're a private company they get the same protections and liberties as all the rest.

Which is a fair comment to make, but ultimately without the protection of Section 230, Twitter or Facebook would have never allowed Trump on the platform in the first place. The risk of being held accountable (ie. lawsuits, defamation suits, etc) for the content he posted would have been too great.

Removing Section 230 wouldn't have the effect people like to think it would.

Yes, I do. To live in a bubble and not expose yourself to things you don't like is to live a life of blissful ignorance.

That may work for you, but I like to be educated and have insight.

Newspapers and magazines have always had a choice who or what to print in their papers. TV and radio stations have always had a choice who or what to air. Why shouldn't social media companies have the same liberties?

The United Kingdom is made up of the island of Great Britain and a part of the island of Ireland (Northern Ireland). It also includes many other smaller islands

You're probably thinking of Great Britain by itself, which is the island containing the main parts of the countries of Scotland, England, and Wales.

I think you probably want Fargate for that.

This announcement is great if you need to package stuff inside your container for use at Lambda runtime.

The main problem there is you are not able to pay a premium for IAP subscriptions. Apple mandates that functionally equal options cost the same inside the app as outside, despite Apple taking the 30% cut for IAP.

No, of course not, but Apple is essentially triple dipping in this regard. Lets break down the costs.

1. A $100 annual developer subscription. It could be argued that this goes towards SDK development, developer tooling, and App Store publishing systems.

2. The 30% fee when selling your app. Similarly, it could be argued that this fee covers application hosting and distribution, as well as advertising, and I guess as a "general fee" for selling your app through the App Store.

3. 30% on all in-app purchases. Given that Apple has no part to play in this (the application was already advertised and distributed, no additional hosting fees as developers are responsible for implementing/unlocking whatever happens once the purchase goes through, etc), what does this cover other than payment processing, which is normally charged at 2.5%~?

Thanks, I appreciate that. And while I do see their offerings as vastly different in many ways, I do see the parallels you mention.

Speaking personally, and as as a lifelong gamer, I place great value in being able to play my games decades from now. I own collections of discs and cartridges, new and old, which I still enjoy from time to time and look forward to being able to share with my kids one day. I do worry that when the various digital storefronts phase out (as many have done), the hard disks which the DRM'd digital copies live on will eventually die, and the games will disappear forever.

It is somewhat comforting to me that the major consoles still have alternative avenues of publishing and distribution - that of the veritable disc and cartridge, which at least in my mind, helps alleviate many of the anti-competitive concerns. That developers can choose between consoles, publishers, retailers, etc, and that consumers can choose to resell, trade, or give away their games, like good old fashioned property - something which is becoming rarer and rarer these days.

This ecosystem (particularly the physical one) provides a level of competition that doesn't exist on phones, and so, at least in my mind, (and along with the differences I mention in my other post), presents a major difference between the business models.

And if this thread were about my employer and their policies, I may choose to weigh in on them also.

Saying that, console games are more often than not the size of a Blu-ray disc, with triple-A games exceeding 40-60Gb in size, sometimes larger. Some popular games come on multiple discs. An order of magnitude larger than the less than 100Mb size of most iOS and Android apps, which are downloadable over a mobile connection. The hosting, bandwidth, CDN, and sales costs for the digital versions of those games and their patches can't be cheap, and are often subject to flash traffic surges, particularly when million of players decide to download them (and their updates) the second they're released. This is to say nothing of the myriad of hosted services that are provided that are unique to consoles.

I don't know what business deals are in place, nor can I make a statement on the perceived value that the publishers who publish on consoles place on what's provided, however its worth noting that even before Fortnite was removed from the app stores, the target of Epic's complaint did not include Playstation, Xbox, or Nintendo.

No, but I don't understand the relevance, much less why a developer would do that (or why Apple would ask for it)?

Of course a developer could just raise prices elsewhere to make the cost equal to that on iOS if they raised the price to include Apple's 30% cut, but the problem would remain.

Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications than iOS users.

As a developer, if you want to survive and make money from your application, you need to be on iOS, as Android is worthless in this regard.

And so, Apple gets 30% of your in app purchase revenue, while providing little value other than being a payment processor, for which the normal charge is less than 2.5%.

But you don't pay 30% more - if it was the case that devs were allowed to make the iOS in app purchases 30% more than the counterparts, that would be fine (well, not fine, but at least it would give the people options).

Apple has blocked stores from doing so in the past, demanding that the iOS price be the same as outside iOS, effectively taking 30% of developers revenue when bought through the app store.

If you hover over the badge on your profile, it shows you which repos you contributed to that made it into the vault.

Fun to read, but there's a lack of detail here that I'd like to see. For example, this talks purely about code changes. However times a code change requires a database schema change (as mentioned above), different API's to be used, etc. In the percentage based rollout where multiple versions are in use at once, how are these differences handled?

The answer is: It just works. It's easy. It does what we want it to, with a minimum of fuss.

I guess I'd like to know the details of how its easier than the other of myriad of products on the market for you?

At my company we use Slack Video calls, WebEx, and Zoom, and they seem as identical as each other (I'd argue Slack is easiest since we're all logged into it all the time, but that's us).

I think this policy has existed for almost 20 years now. I remember in earlier seasons of 24, all good guys used Macs, and bad guys used PC's.

I think there's an element of truth to the scapegoat argument.

By all reports, N26 was not doing so well in the UK. Other established challenger banks such as Monzo and Starling are taking up the mindshare of people wanting to move from an incumbent bank, leaving little room for N26.

It may be possible that with just 200-250k current accounts in the UK, it wasn't deemed worthwhile to go through the effort of gaining a UK banking license to keep their UK expansion efforts going. The competition is just too hot.

Sure - but if you ever want it to be as flexible as GQL, you need to implement...a query language?

With less flexibility, and more round trips.

Of course it is, the wholesale cost of data is peanuts comparatively. However there is _more_ money to be made by marking it up and charging $X per GB above an arbitrary cap.

I would argue that all machines, on Earth or otherwise, should run on UTC! Only when interacting with a human should the output be converted to the local time of that human.

It's exactly what I expected, and I regret trying it.

Google is not merely a reference. As soon as it scrapes a site it caches it, and hosts the summary, and makes the cached version available.

I'm not sure what happened, but I've never heard of this happening. Are you sure it was Lego and not a clone brand?

His assessment on how “Big Mail Corps” accept mail is plain wrong from my experience. When I ran my own mail server, I had SPF, DKIM, rDNS and strict DMARC setup correctly, and got 10/10’s on mail-tester.com.

Admittedly my main problems were with people on Microsoft hosted emails. They seem to run some kind of IP address based blacklist-by-default operation. My emails to Hotmail/Outlook.com users would randomly get either rejected or go straight to spam.

I went through countless online forms, Twitter conversations with clueless CSR’s who kept asking me what Outlook client settings I was using, and finding random people on LinkedIn I could message.

In the end the solution that seemed to work was to reach out separately to everyone I was sending an email to on Hotmail/Outlook.com and getting them to explicitly mark my email as not spam. After a while it seemed to take and stop rejecting/marking my emails.

I still don't understand how. Regardless of who ends up using the phone, surely the original purchaser/signer is still on the hook for the monthly payments?

ie. If I buy a contract iPhone from AT&T then unlock and sell on the phone, that doesn't nullify the fact that I still owe AT&T $100 a month for 24 months, regardless of where the phone is?

IE was superceded by Edge a long time ago. I'm not arguing for a different choice of browser, I'm arguing for them not to ship deprecated browsers.