skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So... in a fit of pique at Apple, retaliate against their own customers? Or even Apple's customers? That is not a great plan.
Because I see this sentiment (PMs have easy jobs and don't really do anything) a lot on HN, I want to offer an anecdotal counterpoint: I am a PM in San Francisco and most of the PMs I know personally work extremely hard and add a good deal of value to their companies. I realize that as a PM I am biased towards thinking I provide value/work hard, but I can safely say I have never heard of anyone working in a PM role as easy/useless as the one you describe.
First, a minor point, but it's not true that "drop" refers only to things you might pick up. You could drop an egg which would break, you could drop something down a bottomless pit, you could drop a facade, etc. It's also not the case that you couldn't "pick up" a "dropped" building, either by cleaning the rubble or rebuilding it.

Second, "drop" may be colloquial but I don't see how it's disguising the action and the consequences. It seems to me there are similar objections to "demolish" - it's like a construction project, or "collapse" it's an unintentional tragedy. If I had to argue for "drop" I suspect it's advantage is that it describes how you want the building and the rubble to fall - down instead of out.

I'd be willing to consider the merits of different word choices, but what I think we should be hesitant about is drawing deep psychological conclusions from word choices that may be entirely coincidental or have a different motive than you think. E.g. "The author uses terms like 'drop' to disguise the horror of war and if such language weren't used we'd have less war." That feels like an overreach to me.
Thanks, and now we're getting somewhere!

I don't see the definition of "Internal Use Application" as clearly prohibiting app usage by these research panels – paid contractors of FB/Google. And, the disclosures to panel members may have met the "clear and complete information" clause.

But the limits on the "Network Extension Framework" usage might be a violation. I suspect FB/Google were effectively building "user profiles for advertising" with this data... though perhaps they could make a case that these specific networking hooks were walled away to a separate, non-prohibited purpose.
To add to your point, even if there were no such "term" governing that particular use of the "service," if I'm the owner of the API and I find out those API keys are being used to spy on my users, don't I treat this as the security breach that it is, and revoke those keys on that basis?
You can compile and run whatever you want.
That seems to be cynicism of the rather unhelpful variant.

If, as you admit yourself, Apple is far better in terms of privacy, would it not be helpful, even if they are not perfect, to praise their (relative) sainthood and bury them with money?

That way, they would be reward for their strategy, might double-down on it (maybe even achieving perfection in your very smart and perpetually critical eyes), and inspire others to follow their lead.
A friend of mine suggested this might have been something they were saving for a PR boost, for example offsetting the FaceTime passive surveillance bug they had this week.
Laws can be changed. I argued that they should be changed in order to limit Apples power. I mentioned Microsoft b/c of their importance then, Android/Apple is the same (but duopoly) now.

We limit what business owners can do for 'greater good' in quite some areas. I think it is necessary here too. Apple: enforce access, Android: limit data snooping.
In the grand scheme of things, it's not the evilest thing to have ever happened. At some point the Windows auto-updater decided to push a new feature that changes the network DNS settings to make them point to some Oracle DNS server. If you undo the changes without disabling the "feature" in the app, it'll reset them for you. It was done with the claim of speeding up DNS lookup or somesuch.

It's a checkbox, and no doubt it would remember the setting if I changed it, but the idea an app would change my DNS settings (which, in my case broke an internal app that was admittedly fragile to begin with) without my permission was enough for me to cancel my DynDNS account there and then while I cobbled together a replacement.
They could, but that would be even dumber than the stupid crap they've already pulled. "Oh, you're a contractor, but we don't have a 1099 on you, oh and you're too young to work in your state"
> My company uses enterprise certs for internal beta/QA builds

That's exactly how they're supposed to be used, so barring rule changes you should be fine.
> Here's a question for you: Why were certain procedures unique to nuclear attacks enacted on the day of 9/11? For example, why was the door to NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Complex in Colorado sealed if the threat was only hijacked planes?

Because the shit hit the fan and everyone hit the panic button Just in Case™?
Specifically this

> Even worse, 100% line coverage means a lot less than people seem to think. Let's say one line to compute an expression will compute the wrong value for some inputs. You might have a zillion unit tests that cause that line to be counted as covered, but still be missing the test that reveals the error case. I see this particularly with ASSERT or CHECK types of macros, which get counted toward 100% coverage even though no test ever exercises the failure case.

I'd rather have 30% test coverage where the lines under test are the complicated ones (not things like factories) with the testing of those lines hitting all the complex edge cases than 100% test coverage that confirms that all your source code is encoded in UTF-8.
Why did he do it? It must have been like a video game for him. He rarely interacted with people directly. Most of his dealings were through employees. The pharmacy business gave him a lot of money within its first 4 years (before the FDA caught wind) so he had a lot of game fuel to play with. And his criminal dealings seemed to occupy him every waking hour, just like a game addiction. Maybe that's why he surrendered so easily, it's just another part of the game, and it interests him.
That reminded me, I have domains to renew. I better take care of that.
I mentioned it in a comment above, but one way in which it feels shoehorned in is the fact that you can only have one Firestore per Google Cloud project. Having only one Firestore per project makes setting up test or staging environments a hassle.
this website is supposed to benefit American military academics and by extension the interests of the United States. But posting these lessons and insights publicly advances all nations equally, including our enemies. Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep all this stuff within the US military?
Good points but there is also one missing: she is American, not Arab and/or has not civic ties with the Monarchy or culture there.

There is a giant difference between communitarian acts one might carry out for the ostensible good of the community (we may not always agree with our own geopolitics, but at least we can vote) - and for other, arbitrary regimes, working for money.

Most people even in the regular civil service have a sense of duty, and it's generally 'not about the money' - and wouldn't be very interested in just 'doing it for the money' anyhow.

The first statement about 'as long as it's not Americans' is a little disturbing though.
But the people using these research apps are not, in their role as app-users, "customers". They're contractors, being paid for a service rendered. And other provisos of the agreement specifically define "Permitted Users" to include "contractors".
More likely it’s about margins and business model.

Apple’s business model is selling high margin products. More share requires lower costs, which increases operational risk and reduces profitability. That’s why Apple stock is cheap compared to other big tech companies... a problem with execution today has a bigger impact than a company like Google that has a stream of revenue from ads on every platform.

You’re going to see changes in the model as they are hitting a growth ceiling, but they’ll probably take a different services path than Google.
Can you call a 9 year old getting $20 gift cards a contractor?
I don't know of any way to have a serious objective talk with the greater community.
Partly a PR move in light of the recent FaceTime bug
Applocalypse!
While the upconverters are nifty if you're not in a pretty rural area or going to do some serious antenna work you'll be heavily limited by conditions at <30Mhz.

+1 on looking at getting a license though. It opens up a whole new world of experimentation and capabilities. Even on 2m I still get a kick covering 80-100mi with our local repeater network.
This isn't necessarily true. Raising capital because the market is good and their are favorable valuations and terms is a perfectly legit reason to raise.

The most successful raises usually occur when you don't need the money.
"Drop" is a widely used colloquialism in demolition, to the point that it's practically a term of art. It's ubiquitous both in civilian demolition work and in the Army Corps of Engineers. In demolition work you'll hear it at least as often as "demolish". Nothing wrong with "collapse"; it just isn't used much. I've never heard anyone use "destroy" when talking about demolition.
I've worked on enterprise iOS apps that were also shared to some of our customers. I've always felt super paranoid about it and thought Apple would shut us down...

Seeing what's going on with Facebook and Google I guess Apple didn't pay much attention to this.
So in the future after Ultraviolet closes, I can redeem an UltraViolet code on one the listed retailers, and it'll still work?
It's a good observation, but I'm still going to disagree. Let's look at the two cases.

(1) It really is dead code. OK, great, but I've seen people spend a whole day writing hundreds of lines trying to exercise it before they conclude it's truly dead. Is it worth it? If a small volume of dead code is worth expunging at all, I suggest that there are more efficient ways to solve that particular problem.

(2) It should be dead, but it's "revived" by constructing an artificial situation in which it does get called even though it never could in real life. Again, I've seen people waste days on this exercise. Now you're carrying around the dead code and the tests/mocks that make it undead.

So in what situation is there a net benefit? In my experience, any dead code that's found and removed that way is only so at great expense, by people who only found it because they were pursuing the arbitrary 100% goal. I don't think that makes the case that 100% unit test coverage is a goal worth pursuing.
There are two certificates that are important here, with different requirements and capabilities. First, you have normal developer certificates, which you can use to submit apps to the App Store. On the other hand, you have enterprise certificates, which can be used to distribute apps outside of the App Store (and without Apple's review), and these are supposed to only be used for company use (such as internal beta testing or apps). Google and Facebook used their enterprise certificate to distribute an app to external users, most likely because the app would be rejected from the App Store, so Apple revoked their enterprise certificate.
Redacting your comments makes it look like you're trying to hide your mistakes. If you no longer stand behind the content of a comment, it's probably better to just put an edit at the top.
It’s fine, dashers are contractors and contractors are expressly allowed.
Twitter Says False Content Is Evolving, and More Comes from the U.S.
Great observation. I'm going to use that. :)
" But then publicly the USA point fingers at Huawei or Chinese government from doing the same."

Security related espionage and industrial espionage are entirely different things.

They overlap a little bit when it relates to 'defence industry' - but the US is not actively stealing stuff from DiDi and handing it off to Apple whereas the inverse is true.
If you're Facebook or Google you're used to being able to dictate terms to others. But there's always a bigger fish and in this case it's Apple.

They're outraged because they have no recourse. What they usually do to users or partners, dictate take-it-or-leave-it terms, is being done to them. They can't even complain to antitrust regulators because Apple is only lord of its own kingdom (which doesn't have market dominance).
Because lots of people still think that if you own a piece of hardware, you should be able to run whatever code you want on it.
The article describes the problem as a building that extends above the surrounding 3-story neighborhood. (5 if I remember right) That is the problem to be solved, so carving off the top couple stories would do the job.

There are less-practical solutions. One could pull out the 2nd and 4th stories, like playing a game of Jenga. One could shove the whole building down by two stories, fully intact, giving it two basements.

So "drop" seems especially fitting here. The highest point needs to drop by two stories.
Yes; internal apps are signed with an enterprise certificate and App Store apps use a standard developer certificate.
I didnt mean it like that - I enjoy guns, and knowing how to use them, be safe with them etc...

But pre-internet, actual printed out physical pictures which were developed in a 3-ring binder to a 17-year-old in 1992 was a disturbing dose of reality.
> Why should they not have the right to enforce the terms of their own service? They own it, the operate it. It's theirs to do with as they wish.

Because they became too big. It's the right of e.g. the EU to allow them to operate. Or better said, the law could be changed to disallow operation if certainy conditions are not met. Apple then has the choice to either adapt or leave the EU market.
Looks like Google has a taste of it's own medicine. It's been deplatformed.
The difference is that Apple are controlling what software individuals can run on their own phones that they paid good money for.

The problem isn't that Apple are allowed to throw Google out of the enterprise program; the problem is that Apple users aren't allowed to install Google's apps without Apple's permission.

It's fair enough to say that Google can't complain because they knew the terms of the enterprise agreement. But I'm not sure it's fair to say that Apple phone purchasers are clearly told when they buy a phone that Apple can disable their employer's internal apps.
Unless I misunderstand the term, isn't your domain already "parked", i.e. bought but not connected to a server?
Yes, I just installed new LED headlights in my car[0], and my FM radio gets staticy when I turn them on.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3H1HWL
So... that rewrite of his code is pretty quick and easy because the components you're integrating are well covered by tests at that point?

Unless the tests on A, B and C are ineffective I think this comment isn't really about tests - some hired developers just aren't great at writing software but if they all used vim that wouldn't mean the cause of their errors was the fact that they used vim.
This is good. But russian translation is terrible (were translations some marketing move?). Please ignore translation. Read original only
You think so? I think they don’t chase market share, but not to avoid anti-trust issues.
I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.
> It seems to me that they should have a number of enterprise signing certs for each use case such as internal beta, external beta, internal utility, external utility, whatever.

Apple does not normally give these out (and why would they?)
If you don't need transmit capability, the SDRplay RSP1A has phenomenal receive performance for the price. If you do need to generate signals (and you understand your legal obligations), the Red Pitaya, LimeSDR and bladeRF are worthy alternatives to the HackRF.

The Red Pitaya is a particularly compelling alternative from a hardware hacker's perspective, because it does double duty as an extremely versatile measurement and data acquisition device.
Use Your Crypto to Trade All Markets Free of Any Commissions and Fees
That depends on whether they entered into a contract, doesn't it?

And technically, entering a contract doesn't even require a signature – just a "meeting of the minds" to exchange considerations of value, like "my data" or "cash value gift cards". (And, these programs may have included actual signed agreements – I haven't seen strong reporting either way on that.)
Landing Page Designs to Inspire Your Next Layout
No, they demolished the building to prevent it from being re-occupied by more fighters. Remember, U.S. forces were prohibited from entering Sadr City, so they really had no other way to do so.
There are better free alternatives like freedns.afraid.com out there if you dont really need to rely on your router that may only support Dyn.com
On the latest android its a huge pain to install fdroid. The only way I could find was installing the system fdroid package through the recovery thing because android doesn't just allow you to install 3rd party apps, you have to get an existing app to request permission to install 3rd party apps and none of the default ones do so unless you already have fdroid you can't install it. Really unethical.
I can't imagine these topics and questions don't informally come up, but it would be healthy to figure out a way to broach them...
It isn't relevant here if Apple is justified or not, if Google is trustworthy or not or if terms of service are enforceable or not.

This is what might be called a classic Stallman effect, where it has been pointed out since the mid-90s that if you don't have a few basic freedoms [0] then at some point an external party will shut you down for reasons you don't like. Google is in a lousy strategic position on this one because they gave up software freedom because Apple didn't seem like a threat at the time. They are lucky their internal apps were not being particularly targeted, I suppose.

This is why a good military plans on capabilities, not intents.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
Would also love to hear more about how this is done... I'm in the process of setting up Stripe subscriptions on a website, but have been scratching my head over the best way to accomplish everything without setting up my own back-end server.
Another Look at Provable Security
As a counter point to this opinion of Kent's, who I respect greatly, I'd like to propose J. B. Rainsberger's article:

"Integrated Tests Are A Scam" with presentation of the same name.[0]

[0] https://blog.thecodewhisperer.com/permalink/integrated-tests...
I'm pretty sure Amazon and other retail sites hate page scrapers. That is why there are all the tricks like see the price in the basket, instant rebates, click to see price etc. I'm surprised that camel still manages to work after all these years and that amazon hasn't cut them off already.
Doesn't a lot of refactoring involve change in responsibility between classes? At least I find that a lot in my code. In those cases, the interface of those classes might change (as the responsibility shifts elsewhere), which will of course cause test changes.
I prefer to speak about "confidence" but I agree with this point quite a bit, if I am making changes and am not certain if my changes will cause breakages I'll manually test things and codify those manual tests are integration/unit tests so that I never need to write them again. Then in the future I can modify code in the same neighborhood with confidence that any breakages I'd cause would be caught by my tests - add in a willingness to liberally add regression tests for any errors that do make it through and I think this approach can really decrease the labour required to make changes, but it does front-load more cost.
Worldwide, sure, but look at developed countries where most of the profit comes from. In the US in 2018 63% were iPhones and 36% were Android[1]. Android usage is even going down in some places, such as Canada where it went from 46% to 39% between 2017 and 2018.

[1] https://deviceatlas.com/blog/android-v-ios-market-share#us
Just exploring the subject here, please don't feel attacked: what would "not be tolerated" mean, and what sort of opinions could be considered "dissenting?"
I used to feel the same way... until I actually read one.

It was a point several years ago that I was looking for a "better" solution to something I was doing. A bunch of Stack Exchange answers on the topic each had a different way of doing it, and each was as complicated as my own solution. Over the course of years, people tried to make the solution better.

Then I noticed the very bottom answer, below some dozen others. Posted about a month before my search.

It was one line.

The individual just posted the one-line answer and a link to the manual.

It was part of the standard library.

And had been SINCE INCEPTION.

It was at that point that I began to RTFM. There are good manuals and there are bad manuals. But one thing I've noticed is that for most libraries, it is absolutely invaluable to be able to have a high level picture of what's available. It has completely changed the way I code, now.

First, read a few hello world tutorials so I can wrap my head around the gist. Then RTFM. Then maybe read a book about it if I want a good idea of best practices. Only then do I search SE or other online sources.

Which I now rarely have to do, for the things in which I RTFM...
Really depends on the individual. For my family, Alexa is almost indispensable, especially with a baby.

Controlling lights, fans, HVAC, TV (shield, amp, etc), Todo and shopping lists, cooking/laundry timers, reminders, tracking baby (diapers, bottles, nursing), weather.

Being able to turn on a light and track baby events while you're up to your elbows in poop is really invaluable.

Definitely won't add smart locks anywhere in the mix.

Limited music since we use Google music.

Also, Celery Man.
The best theory out there is the 'Cold Winters' theory. But it leads to politically incorrect conclusions, so is not widespread.
"Internal Use Applications or Passes shall not be . . . distributed or made available to . . . contractors (except for contractors who are developing the Internal Use Application or Pass for You on a custom basis and therefore need to use or have access to such Internal Use Application or Pass)"
Can a domain name registrar register a domain name for themselves for free or for a minimal fee? What about Verisign -- if they registered ".com" domain names for themselves, who would they even pay since there is no one above them? Seriously, does anyone know the answer to this? I've never found an authoritative answer.

I've wondered if domain name registrars are speculating in the domain name market themselves. Perhaps even insidiously grabbing domain names that you've shown an interest in. Maybe millions of domain names are reserved by the registrars themselves!
>
sounds good, but i dont do anything java on principle.

Since you're just running it and not developing it, what difference does the language make (beyond making sure you have mem/cpu to meet application requirements)?
Heterogeneous Retreat and Ice Melt of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica
Kripto Paralarınızı Kullanarak Komisyonsuz Forex Ve Borsa Oynayın
My personal belief is FB/Google would much rather take the loss of their enterprise cert rather than consider the end user contractors. For example child labor laws might come back to bite them in the ass. Also non-vetting of contractors. Some portion of these 'contractors' are going to be rather terrible people and now they have a business association with them, possibly within violation of state laws.