souplesse

Is your argument that the ends justify the means?

Are you saying that the current generation of Hollywood stars are generally nepo babies? I’m not saying it’s not true, but Tom Holland and Timothee Chalamet are not good examples for that.

Have you created much intellectual property?

While this might seem pedantic, is it actually illegal not to have a home?

I think that's exactly the point the parent comment was making: that, as with driving, an individual who is unable to take the wellbeing of others around them into account can/should have their privilege of individual autonomy restricted.

Obviously there's a difference between defecating on the sidewalk and recklessly injuring someone with a car, so the question becomes how we define harm.

"Telco bootlicking" feels pretty strong for the seemingly reasonable view that a customer doesn't own a phone they haven't paid for.

There are absolutely worthwhile discussions to be had about the ethics of dealing with abusive or greedy corporations, or about whether rent-to-own contracts are predatory.

But just because the community doesn't immediately jump to say "telcos suck so stealing your phone is a moral imperative" doesn't mean commenters are groveling at the feet of T-Mobile.

It is (https://www.fcc.gov/general/cell-phone-unlocking).

The kind of unlocking at issue in this case refers to a) unlocking phones that a customer owes a balance for or b) unblocking stolen phones (which are blacklisted by carriers to deter theft).

Ah, I think you're confused by the way the preceding paragraph ends ("Apple told WIRED that it also plans to continue working with child safety experts [...]").

The paragraph you're quoting ("'Technology that detects...scope of the problem.'") is entirely commentary from Erin Earp at RAINN, and is what was added by WIRED with the edit.

And, sorry to nitpick, but "Countering CSAM is a complicated and nuanced endeavor [...]" has always been the last paragraph (both before and after the edit).

The last paragraph of the story is a concluding statement by the author on the difficulty of countering CSAM, and it says no such thing.

The announced opt-in feature for iCloud family accounts (Communication Safety for Messages) will scan content that is sent and received by the Messages app, and alert the associated parent or caregiver directly, without informing Apple.

Can you give examples of some of the times Apple has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar? Otherwise it seems like a bit of a false equivalence.

Are you really suggesting that people should make Cascading Style Sheets do more than styling?

The parent made no such suggestion. You seem to be conflating the purpose of HTML classes with CSS. Here's a note from the "literal entire spec"[0], which other commenters have already pointed out:

[…] authors are encouraged to use values that describe the nature of the content, rather than values that describe the desired presentation of the content.

Furthermore, the parent took great pains not to attack Tailwind, instead pointing out that the two different approaches could easily coexist.

If you'd like to use class names solely as CSS hooks, go right ahead, but citing "correct attributes" is ironic at best.

[0] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#global-attri...

Sincere question: what new steps would you recommend they take?

The iOS location request prompt uses very clear language while allowing for granular access, and the granted permissions are easily reviewed in Settings.

The App Store requires data usage disclosures, which are presented about as succinctly as possible.

They could mandate that apps share absolutely no location data with any third party, but that would break all sorts of things (external mapping APIs, for example), and it’d basically be impossible to police.

Are there mitigations they could provide that I’m missing?

Wouldn’t that make it mostly interesting history with a little bit of an ad?

I think you missed the point.

There’s nothing wrong with Outside sharing nice places with world, but it’s ironic that they would also publish an article decrying the very popularization that they themselves often cause.

Good thing that isn't what the parent comment is arguing then.

I found quotes from Mark Cuban, but I’m not seeing any comments on this proposal from Buffett/Gates/Bloomberg/Soros. Can you share your sources?

Roger. I considered that but just wanted to clarify, thanks.

since the late 1960s opposition has included the use of nuclear power

Confused—isn’t that what I said?

I think the origins of the anti-nuclear movement are generally associated with the flower-power/Summer of Love/anti-war/early environmental movements of the late 60s/early 70s, which are generally associated with the baby boomer generation.

Diablo Canyon began construction in 1968. The oldest baby boomer would have been 22. Seems reasonable to conclude that the decision to build the plant predates them.

EDIT: Confused by the downvote—does someone disagree on the timeline?

What do you imagine that would look like? Not trying to be flippant, genuinely curious.

I think we’re talking web apps, but the third complaint could still be valid.

An interesting subject, but I couldn’t help but be totally derailed by introduction of Jonathan Hoefler as “designer of famed fonts like Gotham”.

That’s like introducing Thomas Edison as “father of AC power”, or Pepsi as “creators of Coca-Cola”. It might seem like nitpicking, but we’re talking about one of the most famous typefaces in the world[1] and the most dramatic design industry scandal[2] of the 21st century.

[1] https://theoutline.com/post/7356/gotham-font-is-everywhere

[2] https://qz.com/167993/frere-jones-is-suing-hoefler-for-his-h...

Finally, non-security removals should have a grace period of 60 to 90 days.

That was the part that seemed especially outrageous to me. 14 days to appeal or make changes, with no guarantee of response time?

Even if he imagined T2 might reverse the decision, hedging his bets by going public was only rational, given the ticking clock.

Apple could have avoided this whole circus with a more reasonable time frame.

30 on the dot, but my school was pretty liberal/progressive/what-have-you, so that may have helped. Hopefully considering those needs is more commonplace now, and folks won't have horror stories in the future.

I'd say "judgment" rather than the significantly more loaded "whims", but you're right, the policy still relies on a human arbiter.

A codified system is bound to introduce problems: 'You get one bathroom break during class per week, and you've used yours, but this is an emergency? Sorry, I trust you, but the system says I have to give you detention if you go.'

My point was that the problem was with GP's specific (though perhaps commonplace) school culture/teachers, not the general idea of requiring permission.

Feelings on brutalism aside, only one[0] of the ten buildings could reasonably be called categorized as such.

Boring? Yes. Cold and functional? Sure. Just not brutalist.

Brutalist architecture is often considered soulless, but soullessness (in and of itself) !== brutalism.

[0] https://res.cloudinary.com/schoolprison/10_wwfagw.jpg (which was a school)

Comments here suggest you're in the majority with your experience, though I wonder if there might be a little participation bias with regard to strong memories of such bad policies.

As a contrast, at my school the policy was far more reasonable: you still needed permission to leave, but if you didn't abuse the privilege—using it every day, or disappearing for half the lesson—the teacher wouldn't give you any grief.