HN user
I'm assuming most jailbreakers probably don't want to enable piracy, but just want to use apps that Apple won't compete with fairly - like Steam game streaming, or a browser built with an alternate engine like chromium.
Request to Apple: Just let this slide and see how it plays out.
Remember when you took out SuperBowl ads [1] demonizing authoritarian, totalitarian megacorps that told you how to think and what to do - YOU are that company in 2019.
Maybe if you let this alt store be, and monitor it's metrics you'll see that your users really want cheaper, more-full featured apps that you'd never allow on the app store - like a competing browser engine (Chromium), or JIT enabled javascript core [2], ...
It may also happen that this alt-store becomes a piracy and malware haven - in which case, your thesis of totalitarian moderation might win. I'd bet my money on the former - a thriving alt-store filled with apps Apple is too cowardly to approve on it's main store - like Steam Game Streaming, Chromium Browser, JIT enabled js/node, ...
The only thing you haven't accounted for is buying power. Income comparisons have to be normalized along with buying power.
$12K in China-2019 is likely greater than $32K USA-1984??
Because you managed to get under my skin...
I'm not betting on the remainder of your comment being objective. In 2019 if someone can get under your skin by just politely asking for evidence, maybe just maybe, you aren't engaging objectively.
Nonetheless, while there is some evidence pointing to aggressive spying by the Israelis, if you disconnect it from the context of what the U.S. does in Israel, the suggestions of favoritism seem disingenuous.
Most of all, there's no real evidence that 3-letter agencies and career state department employees, who largely handle domestic and international spying, would undermine U.S. interests, regardless of who is in the White House.
Regardless of the attempt here at painting a country's foreign policy as partisan, any given country favors one U.S. party over the other. Right now, China probably favors a Democrat led government, so does Iran. The U.S. probably favors one Israeli party over the other. Your entire issue with this is likely because you perceive Israeli spying to oppose your political party. On those lines, would you classify Chinese/Iranian spying efforts as harmless, just because they currently bat for the Democrats? Or Canada, given that they are allied?
Also, it is being taken as fact that Israel is the originator of the sting rays, when in reality this isn't conclusive.
I believe the U.S. and Israel have proportionate response to each other being caught spying, it makes zero common sense for the U.S. to undermine it's own national security by repeatedly going easy on Israel.
So, citations outstanding on the following open ended claims made:
1. Extent and depth of Israeli spying in the U.S. is considered to be particularly extreme (and U.S spying in Israel isn't)
2. US is easy on Israeli spying efforts despite Israel being hard on US spying efforts
3. Israel is definitely behind the sting rays
4. Your reaction to this story is partisan
And how's this different from America spying on Israel, or any of the five eyes nations it claims to not spy against?
Every country spies on everyone else.
The money comes from lobbyists for previous incumbents in those industries, like legacy taxi, hotel, restaurant... businesses. Those legacy businesses also tend to have stronger Union bases
No you shouldn't be writing in Ada. Embedded software running all kinds of sensitive workloads, from pacemakers to routers/switches use C for it's superior tooling, universal support across compilers and chip vendors, massive user base and decades long best practices (like NASA's C coding guidelines) to mitigate some of C's potential inadvertent misuses.
Not to mention the bevy of advanced niche features, like SIMD support, and custom GCC extensions that lend superpowers to C coders that other languages typically lack.
Sure, ada may have it's benefits for certain narrow use cases, but for non-hobby projects spanning tens/hundreds of engineers, considering real world vendor support for ada and missing talent pool, C is the obvious choice
The lesson here is for Uber drivers to realize it can't be a career, and quit, just like you did. I don't believe they're being compelled or misled into driving for Uber/Lyft.
Additionally, mass exodus of drivers from Uber/Lyft will compel those companies to increase rates
Do you really trust Apple with yours? [1][2].
[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351
[2] https://9to5mac.com/2019/07/29/stop-apple-listening-siri-rec...
Every one of those features appeared in Chinese & Korean Android phones 2-3 years ago. Neither are these "feats", nor are they unique to Apple. They're already behind the curve on these features.
The only commendable thing is scale, when Apple adds these features they reach 10X in unit sales per SKU compared to the competition.
Tesla... Saving the lives of sleepy divers since 2018
Where is the analysis on the percentage of traffic served via IPFS to back up any claims of the benefits of IPFS.
It appears to me that Cloudflare accepts IPFS as (another) source for it's CDN operations & any benefits of flat CPU utilization are likely from the CDN and not IPFS.
In fact, 3 VMs in 3 regions is complete overkill. If the traffic numbers are to be believed, one could simply post their Hugo site to GitHub Pages or Netlify with zero extra steps or dollars spent. No IPFS needed
I've been cynical & critical about iOS Safari's standards compliance. I hope their own use of web components and other modern web standards leads to better compliance for iOS Safari.
Not going to happen. Apple has a very realpolitik approach to it's totalitarianism. China is not an adversary Apple can take on, by it's own internal judgement. Hence, iCloud China runs on Chinese government controlled cloud with possibly full access to data. Hence, WeChat and co. will never be meted out the same draconian polices that companies without state patronage get.
1. Sandboxing doesn't need apple's app store, it's manual policy enforcement and arbitrary anti competitive rejections. Many, many sandboxes have existed with well documented permissioning systems that don't need anointing by manual reviewers.
2. Speaking of flea markets and the false equivalency of the app store to a Walmart, Walmart doesn't require banning flea markets but the app store (Apple) bans sideloading. Walmart and flea markets coexist peacefully.
3. Just because you enjoy being chaparoned on iOS, doesn't mean everyone does. Go ahead and enjoy willy-nilly installs from the app store, but don't block user's choice to circumvent Steve Jobs' image of the universe
The truth is that Apple doesn't play a role in the sale of digital goods, or meaningfully increase security outside automated sandboxing. The real premise of the app store is totalitarianism and greed
What exactly is Apple's role in the sale of digital goods? You made a comparison to selling via Walmart, which is a false equivalency.
The app store can easily work like podcasts aggregating RSS feeds from developers, it's just that Apple has forcefully inserted itself into the transaction
as you don’t try to sell things through it
Why? Why does Apple insist on playing middleman, if not for totalitarian control over all commerce on the platform? How is this not monopolistic anti-trust behavior?
Internet killed the paper star. Before news went online, good, reliable content was paid for with subscriptions.
Going online, paired with the rise of social media changed what it meant for content to be "good" - redefined it to share worthy and click based, monetized mostly by ads. Now, no one, including the famed NYT does good classical journalism - they do what gets them shares and clicks.
On closer examination of social media demographics, you can see why news has pivoted to opinion - because millennials share and click more of it, especially the opinions they approve of.
A demographic shift in HN user base is also likely the reason for more opinion making it to the top of the charts
While the advice is valid and agreeable, many people have already used Facebook successfully for dating, based on many of the same parameters FB plans to use. Only difference being the degrees of separation - without FB's dating app, it was likely to be closer in degrees of separation (friend of a friend)
There is already a computer in the SSD, replete with DRAM, multcore CPU, custom math acceleration (depending on SSD design and vendor), etc.
Keyword advertising's entire premise is based on advertising against keywords, the system is working as designed, and I do not believe Basecamp needs to buy an ad if someone is already searching for "basecamp".
On the other hand, if the ad looked like an organic search result, that is something I'd totally object to. If the ad is clearly marked, doesn't confuse the user and works as designed, especially without maligning or baselessly smearing the targeted keyword, is it really a shakedown?
Pricing does not work this way [1]. Smaller companies tend to offer a lot more accessible support, which is not as loudly advertised. In any case, if pricing did work this way, Saas would be a race to the bottom, which the market has shown to not be the case.
[1] https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/saas_pric...
Indeed - contrarian viewpoints are to be avoided at all costs for productively mass converging on falsehoods.
Glad to see Israel has nothing to do with this.
Wherever CBP presence increases, questionings increase, regardless of race. To frame this tension as harassment targeting natives is disingenuous. CBP often gets accused of racism, especially towards Hispanics, though some 70% of CBP officers deployed along the border are Hispanic themselves.
If the protests are happening within CBP jurisdiction (100 miles from the border), how is deploying authorized surveillance per law "abuse"?
The article, ahem hit piece, basically reports on surveillance commonplace along the border.
But, by picking a border reservation, the exact same surveillance is falsely setting CBP up as a bogeyman apparently racist towards natives - all of which is left unsubstantiated by the article.
The origin of surveillance tech is of no relevance, other than to malign Israel. What would change if the tech were from, say Canada? Nothing but the outage channeled at Israel.
Here's the entirety of the article without the undercurrent prodding outrage:
Surveillance towers capable of infrared tracking of humans for upto 1 mile are common along the border. Some borderland overlaps with Indian reservations.
After browsing through your site I see that you're a kid, and see how you might be inclined to classifying certain creator-narrated-advertising to be amoral. The video you cite has high production quality, with a ton of time put into it's creation. I don't agree with your assessment that the dashlane ad, which is obviously out of place in a video on electromagnetic pollution, can be construed as content versus an ad by the average user, average being the operative word.
You are free to not consume content, but automating revenue stripping en-masse from otherwise high quality content is more unethical than the supposed sketchy advertising tactics.
Unfortunately, you don't walk away from this as the moral victor.
American media picks sides. Most lean left, a few lean right. When a guest with opposing views does decide to come on, you'll see a lot more challenge than the usual friendlies.
It has gotten so bad that the Democratic party regularly shames and rallies against even appearing on a non-friendly. Take Warren's refusal to go on Fox News [1], or Pete Buttigieg's refusal to go on Dave Rubin [2].
I hold Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard in high regard, for going on Fox News and Joe Rogan, and explaining their opinions to an audience & network with opposing ones
[1] https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/05/20/elizabeth-warren...
[2] https://www.thewrap.com/dave-rubin-on-the-outrage-mob-pete-b...
No - Google should be liable if it enables repeat offenders to purchase ad-dollars and SEO their way up to the top. At that point, Google isn't an innocent by-stander, but enabler.
The article mentions a clear pattern, where the base URL stays the same, and small variations are employed to circumvent any legal actions, because Google refuses to acknowledge the "repeat offender" status of the base URL.
When Google indexes reputation impacting personal information, it is not verifying the authenticity of the information. This leads to a potential market for reputation harming falsehoods to be SEO-ed to the top of search results.
Sure, section 203 indemnifies Google et al, but it creates an incentive for bad faith actors to exploit the system.
What is your solution for this problem?