phibit

Really weak article with a sensationalist headline. Very reductionist to say Apple is "over", and the analogy to Microsoft as "unsexy" might be apt, but ironically Microsoft is having a great technological resurgence and has seen rock solid 5 year growth in their stock.

Not to mention that Apple has so much cash in their coffers that they can afford to fail and figure things out for a while. Give them a damn second. There are so many interesting, high-investment bets that these tech giants are making, and I'm looking forward to seeing how they pay off. Self-driving cars, drone technology, AR, VR, ... Who cares about iPhone sales.

But without Steve Jobs, I can’t see Apple pushing the boundaries of these industries and unlocking their true potential

It's unreal to me how people associate so much of Apple's success and ability to "Steve Jobs". The image of one guy rolling up his sleeves and pushing out all of the successful products and ideas alone is ridiculous. He had help. Apple is fine without him.

And the notion that a company just "peaks" once and it's done is also a complete fallacy. Their trajectory can be full of peaks and dips -- in fact many people would have said years ago that Apple had already peaked, and it was on its way into the dumpster.

Building an expensive HQ, comparing that to banks, what the heck does that have to do with anything ? None of these things are predictors for success or failure. Even if Apple's trajectory was directly in line with a similar company that had once existed and then failed, that means absolutely nothing to predict the future of Apple. You just can't. In my view it shows poor judgement on the author's part to even try and make a call like that, you'd have to be insane to think you had that kind of predicting power.

Apple can live or die for all I care but I think it's a huge leap to say they're "over" at this point...

Another fun one that's becoming more common with cloud hosted services: access to internal metadata services that issue credentials.

Blocking file:// doesn't prevent access from > http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credent....

Yeah I'm with you. My argument was regarding the reasons behind why immigration policies might exist, and why I think it's ok for countries to say "sorry you can't just come in whenever" if they want.

The concept that immigration policies are usually very flawed is real, and also has been a source of frustration for me personally. I however do not expect things to change quickly at least in the US.

Worth noting that very conservative immigration policy seems to be the most "safe", the strict policy of "nobody can enter, ever" is very easy to understand, predict and monitor over time. I can imagine a situation where immigration policy is too lax, and yield unforeseen badness.

PS: thanks for being equally civil, and for a very relevant comment.

It seems like you just joined a conversation about work Visas, but you had already decided you wanted to talk about Syria today.

If you are going to boil things down very basically, all jobs are basically indentured servitude. That's why they call it "making a living".

Very thought-provoking question but you've now completely diverged from the original topic.

Canada just accepted 25,000 Syrian refugees fleeing war and something much worse than communism.

This is to my point, there is less scrutiny for immigrants in 'dire straits'.

The social and economic climate has changed dramatically, you're right. We no longer have a climate condusive to a free-for-all exploitation of Aboriginals, Africans, and the environment.

Unclear how this goes to show that anybody should be allowed to immigrate anywhere under any conditions.

Edit: straights -> straits

Your ancestors came here for the same reason as him, and with far less scrutiny, same as mine, and were provided many benefits not recieved today, including land grants.

There has been a dramatic change in economic and social climate in the Americas. Our vague "ancestors" entered Canada and the US in times where it might not have been so magnificent to immigrate, and as such they were presented with incentives to immigrate and contribute to a growing economy. Never mind that some of our ancestors came in as refugees fleeing war and communism.

Today, both Canada and the US have the right to protect their national interests and prioritize the development of their own citizens above the interests of foreign nationals. All countries do this, even those perceived as the most accepting.

+1 from someone who has been on H1-B, I recognize it as a great opportunity and privilege.

The option to return to my home country was never taken away from me, and at every step I knew I retained the freedom to simply quit my job and leave; I did not do that.

No, an H1-B does not afford you the privilege of switching jobs or careers easily. There's no reason to think it should, and that is made very clear during the application process.

Does anyone have any more information about the "52 hour online training program" that "the Macro" allowed them to skip? If that training program is any bit as useless as "online driving school", I can sort of understand how the Macro came to be...

This is great! Many times I've thought it would be cool to develop a programming logic harness for elevator logic, but I've never come close to starting.

I think many developers have been waiting for an elevator thinking "Damn this thing is DUMB! I could do a way better job coding the logic for this..." Can finally test it out.

Spent: $100 Won: 0$ Win/Loss: $-100 Balance $0

ROI: ~1,000,000%

opened a PR with a patch :)

These guys strap an iPhone to a car wheel, drive at ~ 30MPH and record stabilized video. Pretty neat. http://blog.evilwindowdog.com/post/88969373226/extreme-car-e... Was posted on HN a few weeks back.

Yep, you got it! Once again, I don't encrypt all my conversations because I'm making a tradeoff, but I would definitely prefer that they were all private. And again, having a distinct communication channel that was private would not be unwelcome.

Ah yes, that makes sense, thanks!

You misunderstood, completely. I never indicated that I don't have any FB/Twitter/Skype/... accounts.

The idea of having a secure communication channel doesn't mean that ALL your communications have to be over secure channels, that would be ridiculous. Having the option to bank on a secure channel for conversations you deem private is a perfectly reasonable compromise. People in government agencies switch between insecure and secure mediums regularly.

Having a FB/Twitter/Skype/HN account just means that I am willing to make a tradeoff of privacy to use these services, one that I am okay with. This does not completely exclude me from occasionally using a secure medium, right?

Can you explain how these two statements are mutually exclusive?

These statements are mutually exclusive: End to end encrypted: Nobody, not even us, can read or listen into your conversations. Works everywhere: Visit subrosa.io from any computer. No download or install needed.

"There is no demo" -- just make an account quickly and try it out. I did this and it was easy.

"Open-source, but no git repo" -- Open-source does not always entail git or Github.

"I dropped the idea because i realized that no one needs this level of security, NSA is not interested in your chat with family and friends..." -- I'm glad you dropped the idea because someone who doesn't understand why privacy is important shouldn't be making privacy applications. The NSA doesn't care about your chat with family and friends, until suddenly they DO start caring and everything you've said can be manipulated and transformed against you, whether your conversations were innocent or not.

Came here to say this, glad someone said it first. The sense of entitlement that sometimes comes with higher academic degrees is flat-out weird. Congratulations you have a PhD, keep making meaningful contributions but don't expect to get well paid until you earn it by bringing an idea/product that has real/perceived value to market.

Maybe you're just talking about the JSX component? React uses JSX (optionally, they say) but they serve different purposes.

"Ouh Github made a trivial change, to the front page!"

Maybe I am misunderstanding but it seems like this post is critiquing the investments of a specific set of VCs.

Firstly, who cares? If VCs want to blow money on ideas that go nowhere, that's their business. In fact, it's a business that they know and do well, they cast a wide net of high-risk high-yield investments and deal with the average.

And if OP is attacking the validity of the product, great. That's your opinion, but honestly who are you to say which ideas will succeed which will fail. The true test is if the company succeeds. A company's primary goal is to make money, they don't really give a damn about fitting bras. If they can make money, even if their service is factually crappy and unreliable, they've succeeded; probably in their own minds and the minds of their investors.

My personal opinion is that the idea is dumb but if they succeed good for them, they were blessed with a vision that I lack.

Does anybody know what the recommended practice is?

php > var_dump('9223372036854775807' == '9223372036854775808'); bool(true)

This made me cry.

This doesn't show that all paid tweets aren't effective, just that your particular tweet campaign was not effective.

There are a lot of ways to take successful advertising channels and make them perform poorly.