skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You could very easily not install any other store or use any other payment system if you don't want them. You can keep your device 100 % Apple approved even if there exist alternatives. Why take that choice away from others?
"What if a bunch of cops who don't even know you got together and decided to ruin your life with accusations?"

This just pretty much does not happen without reason, and I think it is safe to say that if it did, you are probably a terrible person.
Thanks for this! Seriously I’m a tab minimalist and this narrative is a great explanation of how “the other half” lives.
Given a set of mutually conflicting directives, one must exercise discretion to prioritize. I felt (at the time and reflecting on the experience now) that it was clear which held the higher priority.
Have you considered lightsail? So much cheaper than ec2 and you still get to be on aws.
To local pids. Remote, no guarantee is made. Ergo, generally better to assume no guarantees. Same as with everything else; you have at most once, or at least once; there is no exactly once (except in marketing speak that uses an identifier to allow at least once to dedupe within a window).
To be sure, "Dr. Gaddafi" here is Muammar Gaddafi, the late dictator of Lybia.

Go wolves!
By consumers I mean the people that vote with their wallets by buying iOS devices.

If it helps you sleep at night, keep thinking it’s a very small minority. It’s really not.
It's not possible to make this a switch the user can turn on or off (with reasonable effort).

Take the alternative app store. If they are allowed you will have some with exclusive apps. Those apps are then outside the apple rules and you have to have to hit the switch if you want them. So you loose out on the app or on all your apps being apple rule / account / payment compatible.

If there is no alternative store you will get all apps the apple way.

Apple is providing a real benefit here.
Of course they are also leveraging their semi-monoplostic position to "extort" money and to distort competition.
It's important to note that competition law is broader and more broadly enforced than antitrust law in the US. A particularly relevant area for these issues is "Section 46 - Misuse of market power". This is distinct from laws in relation to price fixing, monopolies and merges. The ACCC (and possibly the later, Australian courts) will be trying to answer if Google / Apple are misusing market power as part of this inquiry.

One area that is particularly ripe is "the market for in-app payments". The ACCC would be looking whether it can establish whether under s46:
a) does the company have substantial market power?
and b) is it engaging in conduct for the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition?
More info is available here: https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/...

s46 - Misuse of market power was revised for easier enforcement/litigate under in 2017, and you can see a list of active cases include a case from Epic Games vs Apple and Unlockd Ltd v Google (Filed in Australia):
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=34d307e2-1d63...
It is a BIG deal for a private company to take action under s46. There used to only be a couple cases every decade.

It is possible that an undertaking or court-order that could emerge out of this inquiry would require Google/Apple to make it easier for apps to accept in-app payments from providers other than Google and Apple in Australia.

As far as I know, the USA does not have an equivalent area of law, and if it does, it certainly is not enforced.

*disclosure: I worked at the ACCC 2008-2011 and these are opinions of my own.
Of course they do?

The alternative often mentioned in this context is to have some kind of democratic system for setting a definition and then resolving disputes around it, but certainly you can see how we've already started down a path that has the potential to utterly consume an otherwise functioning organization.

I wouldn't begrudge a company for trying the above approach, but I personally wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, and I'd appreciate it if they were as transparent as Basecamp has been.
It's not a perfect analogy because advertising doesn't have a limited number of "questions." If someone adds fraudulent clicks to your site, there's no downside to your business. Worst case, these clicks are ignored. Best case, these clicks are actually counted. Either way, your business is unaffected.
In the physical world we take measures to ensure evidence is not tampered with like tamper “resistant” packaging etc... We don’t have any such measures at all for the digital “evidence.” And what exactly is digital evidence and how do we keep and maintain the integrity of it from beginning to end. We have trouble maintaining the security of mission critical systems. How are we gonna ensure there are no rogue elements in this process who conveniently can and will digitally frame us. They already use fake evidence in the physical world by planting stuff on us. Digital planting is so much easier.

On a similar note, nation state hackers already have false flag tools in their arsenal, where they “plant” evidence of other nations doing an attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7
> Apple needs the control to have the leverage that makes their ecosystem better. It's in the interest of their customers for them to have this leverage and it requires that their 'store' is the only available store so app devs can't bypass their requirements.

I don't understand this argument at all.

You're almost certainly taking more risk driving in a car than downloading an app, yet you're probably willing to embrace the full degrees of freedom of the roadway.

We shouldn't be afraid to use computers. Security is possible without an app store.

Apologizing for Apple's exploitive system is doing us all a disservice. It's making it harder to do business, launch a startup, use your own device, refurbish your device, and compute freely.

Technology wasn't always a locked-in time share. We're witnessing a hostile takeover. An invented scam, sold to us by the Jobs and Ballmers of the world.

The Apple and Google stores make us serfs in their kingdoms. We're renting, not owning.

Your choices are impinging upon my freedoms. The more people that accept this, the more companies are willing to take.

A Department of Justice breakup is looking like the only solution at this point.
I wonder if/when we'll see an attack on Cellbrite's tools in the while. Getting a ransomware trojan onto an airgapped evidence computer would be a neat trick.
I've found that taking notes in cursive helps my listening comprehension, for whatever it's worth. But it makes it harder to use my notes as a reference later.
"Less than Container Load"
I think the underlying effort with that sentiment is not to agree on what companies' responsibilities or "ethics" are, but rather to create enough guardrails (legislation, rules, public sentiment through the free press, etc.) for companies that they can't act immorally or unethically.

I think it's high time we stop assigning personalities to companies, expecting them to be "good people", and start legislating them to prevent them from harming people and the planet in the first place.
What if they change their mind about the rules and their vision becomes inconsistent with what you want? You'll have no recourse and vendor lock-in will prevent you from switching platforms
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ina.12639
It seems to me like the census is the wrong tool for the job described in the headline. I understand that a census makes sense for allocating seats, since it’s easy for citizens to understand and trust. Filling out the census is almost a political act. And indeed most of the article is about apportioning of reps. But if I want to know how many people there are, surely there are more accurate approaches?
You can't, as in any developed nation I can think of, advertise alcohol to children. Take a look at the actions the industry has taken when they even put alcohol ads too close to children, or too appealing to children, ctrl-f for moon dog. https://www.abac.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ABAC-Quar...

You cannot advertise alcohol to children in Australia
Rare chunks of Earth's mantle found exposed in Maryland
In case anyone is looking for a citation, here’s a recent peer reviewed study of a Taiwan university and how increasing ventilation greatly reduced tuberculosis infections.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ina.12639
> It doesn't matter what the perpetrator thinks.

It does matter in most jurisdictions. Rape is usually not a strict liability crime. Conviction requires both an act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea) on the part of the defendant. (Statutory rape, on the other hand, often is strict liability with only an actus reus requirement).

Generally if an act can be legal or illegal and the defendant believes that they are doing the legal version, the mens rea requirement is not met and the defendant is not guilty. Many jurisdictions do require that the defendant's belief be in good faith and their mistake be one that a reasonable person could make.

For an example of the kind of thing the prosecution must typically prove, here are California's jury instructions for "rape of intoxicated woman or spouse" [1].

[1] https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/1000/1002/
This is the really cool part, the ability to add custom instructions are part of the spec which makes them work through standard compilers. Any compiler that can build a RISC-V program can handle the custom instructions as inline assembly so all one needs to do is write a library to abstract them. Obviously you don't have the off-the-shelf ability for the compiler to insert the instructions automatically, but this is rarely the goal for small-to-medium projects.

Example:

https://nitish2112.github.io/post/adding-instruction-riscv/
Perhaps it's a difference in workflow, but I really don't understand why managing a "temporary" commit is so mentally taxing. Especially because in my workflows, I'm often not managing a single commit but an entire stack of commits, for which the staging area adds no value.

As I see it, the staging area is useless because it's basically a weird not-quite-commit-thing that you are more or less required to deal with (no way to opt out of it--several commands end up mucking about with the staging area even if you're not trying to use it). It feels like the better way to model it is to make it an actual commit, let it be manipulated as a regular commit, and then potentially improve the tooling around manipulating unpublished head commits as well.
As a huge fan of Rust, I am very interested in people writing comments about what C++ does for them that I'm missing in Rust.

I want more C++ shilling in Rust threads, and I don't think I'm alone.

Please, give me detailed examples of how you can use SFINAE or whatever to express useful misuse-resistant abstractions that can't be expressed with Rust's feature set. Please tell me about classes of bugs you can prevent in C++ that can't be similarly prevented in Rust.

Or maybe C++ isn't safer, but it's more performant? Easier to use? Easier to learn? Easier to troubleshoot and debug?

I agree that the Zig comment that started this sub-thread didn't contribute to the conversation. If we disagree, although I'm not sure we do, it's in that I'd rather call for higher-effort comments about the benefits of other languages instead of fewer comments about them.
Not really - pagans tend to be more open-minded about such things than monotheists.
We don't know that this is a false positive.

There's a good chance this app was being used as a vector for hacking, spamming or ad fraud. Not by the developers of this app, but by others who found this app being a useful way around the security of the Google Play store approval process.
I'm in the very early stages of an alternative git client. One of the ideas I've had is marking commits as "WIP". Under the hood it'd just be a prefix, but you could toggle it like a tag. By default push would ignore them.

I also think you should be able to have a bunch of WIP commits at once and stage changes to any of them equally easily (fixup/rebase but easier and by default).
DeepFake technology seems like it makes "bearing false witness" into an arms race.

Who does the better job of framing the opponent?

Does X start off getting busted, as though framed by Y, only to have the truth be X framing Y to appear as though framing X?
Do you give those same backpats, kind words and smooches to Philip Morris and the other tobacco companies who spent decades advertising to kids and teens? Or just the company who you may find yourself applying for a job with?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University_rape_contr...

TL;DR guy was falsely accused of rape and then harassed for a year regarding the incident with the help of university professors at Columbia.

I don't know about "a bunch of your ex-girlfriends" but never say never...
Yes but they can't run alongside children's programming or feature themes that are intended for children. Eg, they can't target 13 to 17 year olds even if it's during sports
> If fraud existed it was in the marketing of the CASE tools UML was embedded in.

Yes, that was the claim I intended to make. Thank you for saying it more clearly.

> smoke and mirrors solutions…proprietary modeling languages…predictable collapse…Big investment means and meant exclusive, profit-driven ambitions,

Yes, yes! I can see we totally agree!

> not fraud

Wait, doesn't that contradict the entire rest of your comment, including the immediately previous and following phrases, "profit-driven ambitions" and "self-serving, big money investment"? How can something both be a "smoke and mirrors" "self-serving" "Ponzi scheme" and also be "not fraud"?

It sounds like you agree with all my factual claims, adding supporting points of your own for them, but you think "fraud" is not the right word to use? Why not? My best guess at this point is that you don't know what the word "fraud" means.

Also, as a side note, I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean:

> By definition, that task was never going to be an easy nor mutable exercise.
Just read this article about the project: https://scitechdaily.com/magicdna-tiny-complex-dna-robots-de...

Seems like pretty cool stuff, makes me think of DNA-as-programming-language somehow.
If you feel that it's being misrepresented, feel free to represent it properly.
amd64 is more RISC now than ia32 was in 2001 as well.
>"It's in the interest of their customers for them to have this leverage"

Most likely it is in the interest of majority of consumers conditioned to this type of control. I realize that it is a benefit for older computer illiterate people. It completely sucks for people like myself.

>"10 different game distributors all with their own shitty incentives"

That's one classy way of describing business approach. Yes they're shitty in a way that they're there to help you part with your money and everything else is but a fluff around it. You just forgot to add Apple itself to that group.
$80 / square foot is, like, cheap, but I'm not sure I would really call it amazingly cheap.
Maybe take your head out where it don't shine and actually learn a thing or two about scarcity economics and positive feedback systems.

Also quit with the fantasy that people have unlimited life - sure you can always get lucky, there is hope, but that's what it is, luck. It's not even hard to see - the financial landscape depends on people mortgaging over half their lives.

People like you absolutely disgust me.
Me too. Every day I'm like, can I buy a 5950X yet? No? Dang. Please take my money. No not you, scalpers!
From the article:

>2. No more paternalistic benefits. For years we've offered a fitness benefit, a wellness allowance, a farmer's market share, and continuing education allowances. They felt good at the time, but we've had a change of heart. It's none of our business what you do outside of work, and it's not Basecamp's place to encourage certain behaviors — regardless of good intention. By providing funds for certain things, we're getting too deep into nudging people's personal, individual choices.

The authors were not referring to benefits in general, but to a specific subset of them that seem to fit your definition well.
His response is the most reasonable one that I have seen through all of these, non-issue issues that have come up over this idea that master branch is actually referring to slavery. Id really wonder who even thought that master in the context of git was ever a reference to slavery. I have to think they were some high school/college student that some how made the connection while watching history channel late at night after enjoying a Friday evening or something.
Why does half of HN seem intent on ruining the iPhone for the rest of us?

The explicit selling proposition of the iPhone is that it is a closed ecosystem. I and my family buy it for precisely this reason.

If you want a choice about what you install, you can have it! It's called Android, and hundreds of phone manufacturers are lining up to sell you a compatible handset. Leave us with the one phone manufacturer who has managed to reliably deliver a mostly safe and secure handset.
We can both have our cake and eat it too, we just need either an unlocked bootloader, or the ability to sideload apps over an ADB-like usb interface. People who don't want that functionality will never know it's there and there won't be any decrease in security.
What a terrible example for a leader to set and a petty, immature way for them to act.

Edit: rather than downvoting silently I’d love to have dialogue indicating why I’d be wrong about DHH’s behavior, but everyone is free to behave the way they like :)
Yes, one takes more risk using the road than using an unofficial apk. But I’m not aware of an “App Store-like” method of transportation that would let someone get where they’re going just as easily and quickly without any risk. And if we’re talking about the average user, the harm done by malicious software may be much harder to detect in the first place.
Same here from mobile Safari.
I completely agree. The amount of pearl clutching happening in this thread is fascinating. It reminds me very much of the 1980’s fundamentalist Christian house I was raised in. Very much like it.
They could be extracting the data once into a Merkel tree and then peruse that. I've got to believe the reason they don't is that various intelligence agencies don't want them to.
Drinking harms the adolescent brain.

Why comment about how “it’s legal there” or “teens already do it” or “it’s really the advertisers’ fault”? Where does defending Facebook’s behavior get you?
What I was explaining is my understanding of the point of view of the people who believe he does have privilege for his race. It is not my belief but I try to understand all sides of arguments and did my best to represent it.

To continue, briefly. The difference between the various other types of benefits vs "whiteness" is twofold but interconnected. It is obvious who is and is not in the group and the group has institutional power. Most other sets of parameters do not work together in this way.

Again this isn't my position so if it is yours and I've misrepresented it, chime in please.
It could fragment the Apple software ecosystem. Since a non-fragmented ecosystem is what I want, I don't like that. Add more stores and my choice to buy into a unified platform is at risk.
Mighty makes Chrome run somewhere else* for a high price.
For starters, the rich have uniform interest in taxation policy - brackets, inheritance, wealth tax, loopholes, trusts, offshores.
I think a great test case for these contextualization engines might be to parse a few years of MSNBC coverage of Trump's administration and look for balanced, accurate reporting of -cough- facts.

Ditto with any MSM publication, Washington Times, Fox news, New York Times,...

This is a fool's errand and the queue of fool's volunteering their expertise is staggering.
Notice something about those ads excluded? They are simple red line unconditional "no's". Add in judgement calls and there will be fuck-ups. Of course lack of judgement can lead to its own class of fuck ups like offending people for "reject ads for military recruiting because they showed a gun in them".
The old "we need to continue destroying the ecosystem because we created unforeseen problems by destroying the ecosystem"
100% agree, although digging through someone’s comment history on Reddit is totally fair game! ;)

In all seriousness this is an abhorrent example for a company leader to be setting. It’s incredibly disappointing but unfortunately maybe not that surprising.
The theoretical limit of how efficiently you can turn energy into useful work depends on how cold your energy sink is. The coldest energy sink in an ever-expanding universe gets colder over time as everything spreads out and the fixed amount of energy occupies more and more space. So the hypothetical optimal end-state of an extremely old civilization is hibernating a bunch of very stable mass until the extreme far future, at which point they can drip-feed it into a black hole to do some extremely efficient computation.
That's all fair enough, and I appreciate the response.

Two thoughts, though: I believe CRT is merely derived from but distinct from Critical Theory. Though I am quite to the right, my understanding is that "Critical Theory" is quite valid to study; CRT seems to basically consist of pseudoscientific nonsense, abuse and bullying.

Second, in some states (coincidentally, Virginia also came up recently) are ending advanced diplomas and programs for talented students, including advanced classes for high achievers. This is being done in the name of "racial equity," as elucidated in CRT.

My fear is sort of an inversion of yours: high achieving students will be held back in the name of this bizarre new Progressive "equity," while those who are low achieving (for whatever reason) are not helped at all.
You're clearly not the target market then. There is an increasing amount of very resource heavy browser based tools that benefit a bunch from this.

AND we're not even talking about the huge nocode push happening rn which always end up as RAM hogs

AND AND we're not even yet talking about the huge clunky internal tools that some companies have their whole business revolving around.
“ Some people need more functionality than iOS and its associated apps provide to do their jobs (ie embedded development/testing) among other things. ”

The open PC market is doing really well these days. Like, there’s a huge silicon shortage.

“Apple has a monopoly on not shitty hardware”

I have to chuckle. It’s almost like we want Apple to become a utility that must by government fiat build this great hardware but we now are going to force their software to operate the way a committee wants.

I am for regulation when it benefits consumers broadly (though unintended consequences abound). But this feels like pandering to a niche: potential dealers and tech tinkerers that never wanted the PC to become a consumer product.

There is nothing sinister of about running a business with focus and vertical integration. Apple tried an OEM model once, it didn’t work well for them (in part because Microsoft and Intel had that model locked up).
I think that if you're that upset about the sort of thing that happens in every single place where there's customer support and people need to vent, then you have no place working in a customer-facing position.

People vent, and they do so without thinking too much because they spent every single customer interaction censoring themselves and thinking deeply about how not leave a bad impression.

DHH did the right thing: they owned up to the problem, finished it, and moved on.

If you're going to complain about every possible grievance and unsavory behavior you're not gonna be a person that will get along with peers.