skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
TL;DR: Most (if not all) of the same features, just not as tightly integrated. Every feature is a piece of the puzzle that is your user config.

---

Picture Emacs without a default keymap. That's a start. The user builds their own UX from scratch; bringing each feature into their config explicitly. Alternatively, the user just grabs a curated config like Doom Emacs. The difference here is that they can read it: all of it.

Instead of writing a bunch of imperative elisp (that becomes its own web of circular dependencies), let's structure the config with some kind of purely functional additive data structure. That Piece Table I wrote is a good start. Instead of just piecing together letters, let's piece together UI and functions.

This idea can apply to everything. I envision it as the next generation of shells, of web browsers, of operating systems: everything. Imagine Blender, but you the user add one fruit at a time. Where's the button to extrude mesh? Exactly where you put it; or nowhere at all!

Software is made of incompatibility, and I'm sick of it. Where we should have borders, we have walls. Just imagine what it could be like if we tore them all down.
Google's App Store Ruled an Illegal Monopoly, as a Jury Sides with Epic Games [pdf]
Yep they wasted no time here
> If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible!

Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal.

E.g. It’s not illegal to be the only seller of gasoline in the country. It is illegal though to bundle laundry powder with gasoline sales to corner the laundry powder market.
The whole premise is flawed. Drug research is a public good and should be publicly funded. Private funding horribly distorts incentives (only drugs that are lucrative enough to recoup R&D costs are funded).
That's cool, but, uhm, isn't the hard part still to come?
Who are you and why should we take your questions so seriously?
I'm not up to date on Apple's current rules, but for years they have strictly forbidden you from directing users to your website to complete a purchase. You weren't even allowed to mention any other payment options in the app.
Drug discovery has already mostly ground to a halt, so I don't think we'd be breaking much of a system.
This is disgusting, dehumanizing, and when applied to any group at any scale will cause atrocity. Says incredibly much about this site that this comment is welcome here. Straight up eliminationist. How about I advocate for your death as a matter of policy?
> If it was anti-competitive, the iPhone would've died at birth. Nobody would have supported an anti-competitive product if they actually cared at a time when it could have easily been ignored.

What makes you say that? A product being anti competitive has little to do with whether consumers will buy it. You dont see how you can have the best product on the market and also stifle competition?

I also think youre mixing up your markets here. The app store is not the same thing as the iPhone. The iPhone was a very competitive product that has an anti competitive market in it and some consumers are willing to look past that. Doesnt make it acceptable.
Details on some of these came through in the Epic v Apple case, but they were very light https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netfli...

Google just has more types of companies in the ecosystem to make deals with. Apple’s iOS OEM deals can’t be found anticompetitive because they don’t have those deals to begin with.
Yes. If I bought and paid for something I own it and should be able to run whatever software I want on it. Anything less makes it not my device anymore.
I'd say the addiction crisis started when people got addicted. The attendant economic and social crisis then got worse as legal pills became less available. But whether someone gets addicted by way of an overprescribing doctor or by way of picking a bottle of laudinum off the shelf at a liquor store, that person is probably going to become addicted. The question is whether that means they'll have to go looking for potentially dangerous street drugs.
Hurting consumers? Apps are dirt cheap.

If anything, they’re hurting developers, but even that may be hard to argue. Developers still flock to the platform.

Even if those developers can’t make a living doing that (and many likely can’t), that’s not an argument for Apple’s fee being too high. There’s no right to be able to make a living in the way you want.
Apple is horrible, but Google isn't blameless.

Google and Apple are a duopoly that controls one of the most essential devices of our time. Their racket extends more broadly than Standard Oil. The smartphone is a critical piece of modern life, and these two companies control every aspect of them.

- Tax 30%
- Control when and how software can be deployed
- Can pull software or deny updates
- Prevent web downloads (Apple)
- Sell ads on top of your app name or brand
- Scare / confuse users about web downloads or app installs (Google)
- Control the payment rails
- Enforce using their identity and customer management (Apple)
- Enforce using their payment rails (Apple)
- Becoming the de-facto POS payment methods (for even more taxation)
- Partnering with governments to be identity providers
- Default search provider
- Default browser
- Prevent other browser runtimes (Apple)
- Prevent browser tech from being comparable to native app installs (mostly Apple)
- Unfriendly to repairs
- Unfriendly to third party components (Apple)
- Battery not replaceable
- Unofficial pieces break core features due to crytographic signing (Apple)
- Updates obsolete old hardware
- Green bubbles (Apple)
- Tactics to cause FOMO in children (Apple)
- Growth into media (movie studios, etc.) to keep eyeballs on their platforms (Apple)
- Growth into music to keep eyeballs on their platforms

There are no other companies in the world with this level of control over such an important, cross-cutting, cross-functional essential item.

If we compared the situation to auto manufacturers, there would be only two providers, you could only fuel at their gas stations, they'd charge businesses every time you visit, they'd display ads constantly, and you'd be unable to repair them without going to the provider.

There need to be more than two providers. And if we can't get more than two providers, then most of these unfair advantages need to be rolled back by regulators.

This is horrific.
And supermarkets have no obligation to build expressways to their competitors!

We can take these analogy absurdities wherever — the harsh reality is that nobody is stopping someone from building an open ecosystem phone. But there isn’t enough demand.

As a consumer, why should I care? As a company, unless I’m building my own walled garden for company phones, why should I care? What’s the market here?
"they" is the Mill team.
I was using the command line. llama-7b

I did some investigating, and I found it doesn't start using the GPU unless you have a lot of input (such as a long prompt).
Thanks for the summary. All of that confirms that the shelters are not full, they are underutilized. I am opposed to the idea that we just need to pump more money into this issue, which then gets distributed among "case managers".

E.g. we have invested $62M in case managers to handle 2100 approved cases? With the program's annual budget being $365M? This shows a ridiculous level of bloat and corruption. Do we need to spend $30K per case, considering that this doesn't cover the shelter expense?

I am not opposed helping people in need, I am opposed the idea that we just need to spend more money. And then next year a little bit more. More taxes, more case managers, more street cleaning teams, more safe injection sites. None of that is solving homelessness, all of that is contributing to making the homeless industry bigger.
I hope this is a joke, otherwise, I don't understand the pejorative use of "420" for this status code. Cannabis consumers would really love the dignity of being treated like any old alcoholic. /s
... Steam isn't the thing that doesn't support MacOS. I don't know why you're mentioning Steam.

But yes, console and OS exclusives are a plague and people should stop making them.
>the idea that we need to bring religion back essentially to control people is extremely patronizing. Basically, we are saying that some people are too stupid to live productively if they are not controlled by fairy tales.

Can something be simultaneously true and patronizing?

Just looking at how humans in general behave worldwide, I'd say that yes, people are really quite stupid.
Having a walled garden is fine. I use iPhone and apple products from day 1. That said, charging 30% of subscription in the App Store seems ridiculously high if you put yourself in the 3rd party vendor place.

For comparison, Amazon charges 15%. AWS marketplace charges <10%.
While there are not many competitors, they still do (most times) properly compete due to various factors like pressure from their customer (some very very large with the capabilities to become a competition iff they stop innovating and/or become to expensive), but also factors like political pressure to stay ahead of mainland china.

Through TSMC for example has margin >40%. Which isn't that surprising I mean there is not much competition. Intel doesn't (yet) provide their capabilities to anyone else, and the other competition is behind enough to not be an option for many things, especially high end and/or high efficiency.

What is quite fascinating is that while TSMC is a close to monopoly(/duopoly if you count Intel) in many sectors and takes advantage of it they seem to have successfully resisted the common problem of such companies stopping/slowing innovation and similar problem. I'm not sure if it's related to the additional pressure of them being on of the main lifelines for Taiwan or if they have just pretty good management or if it's because they still competition oligopoly main customers do push them to do so.
Because consumers value the Apple ecosystem and UX, both of which you can take advantage of as a developer. What is the problem?
> The fact that there's so much money to be made on iOS for 3rd party app developers and more than Android is evidence of a competitive market

No, the opposite, it is evidence that Apple is a monopoly, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten away with taking 30% with no repercussions. It should have driven their profits to 0 in the appstore market since why would users pay such a massive markup for everything? But it didn't due to their anti-competitive measures.

> A company employing anticompetitive practices would drive those profits to zero

No, that isn't how it works, they weren't anti competitive towards other apps, just towards other app stores. Their massive tax on those apps is the result, you can still be profitable even with a massive tax.
My most charitable interpretation is that this is attention-seeking by the author. It’s not a good idea. It’s not funny.
This doesn't really address the comment. Decriminalize = production is criminal, consumption is legal. Legalize = production is legal, consumption is legal.

The parent comment was complaining that legal consumption made the environment threatening.

>maim and kill users, push users into poverty, and generate and push the externalizes of drug use onto the rest of society.

None of these appear to hinge on decriminalization vs. legalization. Alcohol, for example, maims and kills users, pushes severely addicted users into poverty, and externalizes the problems of its use onto society.

Use went down during prohibition, use went up during legalization. So in effect you're proposing we increase these problems as related to meth and other hard drugs.

(This is not an argument for prohibition of alcohol, it is merely listing the cons of legalization)
This is formalizing existing practice, not introducing a new concept.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#420
How many business ideas does that guy have that make more than $1 million a year but would also be unprofitable after 30% app store fees?
> However, consumers have the right to go to a different supermarket, without selling their house.

Consumers bought this house with their eyes wide open knowing that they can only access one supermarket.
This list is weirdly not that helpful. `planor`, the planetary orbital calculator, sounds cool, but it's actually "A TUI client for cloud services for aws, vultr, heroku, etc." No orbits in sight! Now I'm not sure which of the descriptions are accurate.
>Drugs+innovations are largely funded by the public sector (see a previous discussion on HN I can't find right now)

Insofar as Europe pays less for drugs than the US, the US is subsidizing drug development. (I.e. when pharma companies decide whether they will recoup their R&D costs for a new drug, they are disproportionately looking to countries that pay the most.) Public/private doesn't affect my point here -- the US shouldn't necessarily copy the European model if the success of the European model is based on freeriding, even if it's freeriding on US govt spending.

>As for NATO, that was formed to stop the entirety of the Eurasian landmass falling under Soviet control. It is hard to imagine an isolated US fairing too well in that kind of world.

The US has oceans on both sides and friendly nations on our borders. We're gonna be fine. Isolationism was working perfectly well for us prior to WW2.

If you really believe in the European model, you should advocate for Europe to defend itself. Stand up for what you believe in. If the European model is truly effective, then Europe should be perfectly capable of taking care of itself. The US can then offer humanitarian alliances to other, poorer countries that actually need help.
> “Nobody’s lives depend on this,” says Bartholomaus

it would actually be pretty cool to see glaciers covered in greenery rather than have them melt away into nothing, maybe more of these things would be helpful

it unironically sounds like a climate initiative cultivate and mutate these to be faster growing, especially given that they seem to shield the ice beneath. what a neat substrate for a plant
Google didn’t need to pay these companies either. They chose to do it so they could keep their play store monopoly. And they may have just burning billions in profits because of it
Thanks. I saw that mention in the article, but couldn't really make much of it.
Sorry, no, it was just easy for me to get into this one because I’ve listened to it on the radio for so long I know what to expect style wise.
That’s kind of cool. Also related to local-first, maybe.
And if you need to brush up on your math, "Mathematics for Machine Learning" is available for free, by the authors.

https://mml-book.github.io/book/mml-book.pdf
The amount of heavy lifting that the word “may” is doing in this FUD encoded legalese SEC disclosure is impressive. It also ignores that first order effects reducing profits due to open sourcing may be eclipsed by second order effects in the market possibly selecting for rather than against open source software/firmware/drivers for their products.

> Our use of open source software may harm our business.

> Certain of our software and our suppliers’ software may contain or may be derived from “open source” software, and we have seen, and believe that we will continue to see, customers request that we develop products, including software associated with our integrated circuit products, that incorporate open source software elements and operate in an open source environment, which, under certain open source licenses, may offer accessibility to a portion of our products’ source code and may expose our related intellectual property to adverse licensing conditions. Licensing of such software may impose certain obligations on us if we were to distribute derivative works of that software. For example, these obligations may require us to make source code for the derivative works available to our customers in a manner that allows them to make such source code available to their customers or license such derivative works under a particular type of license that is different than what we customarily use to license our software. Furthermore, in the course of product development, we may make contributions to third-party open source projects that could subject our intellectual property to adverse licensing conditions. For example, to encourage the growth of a software ecosystem that is interoperable with our products, we may need to contribute certain implementations under the open source licensing terms that govern such projects, which may adversely impact our associated intellectual property. Developing open source products, while adequately protecting the intellectual property upon which our licensing programs depends, may prove burdensome and time-consuming under certain circumstances, thereby placing us at a competitive disadvantage, and we may not adequately protect our intellectual property. Also, our use and our customers’ use of open source software may subject our products and our customers’ products to governmental and third-party scrutiny and delays in product certification, which could cause customers to view our products as less desirable than our competitors’ products.

https://investor.qualcomm.com/financial-information/sec-fili...

https://web.archive.org/web/20230921012336/https://investor....
Sounds like fun!

Dropbox also has LAN sync if you're all on the same "team" account. Works wonders between local computers.

I love seeing targeted solutions like the one posted by OP, but I can't shake the feeling that the application of distribution game files is only the surface of it's applicability.
Speaking as someone who's gotten more than one tech illiterate relative an iPhone and iPad, the walled garden is WHY I bought in. It's literally Apple's biggest selling point, not having to worry about fake apps and malware and scams.
Right - a co-marketing deal isn’t the illegal thing. It’s the "limiting competition" part that gets them in trouble. This case was entirely about figuring out when a ‘good business deal’ becomes anti-competitive. This is also playing out now with Google paying Apple for default search engine.

If it was revealed that Sony gave Epic a special marketing deal to prevent Epic from launching a console, then yeah that would be pretty dodgy!
Socialize the drug distribution then. The government can manufacture and distribute drugs at dirt cheap prices.

I don't want legal drugs for me, but to get rid of the criminal distribution networks, and reduce the lengths addicts need to go to in order to procur drugs (which may often culminate in robbery and theft)
For my learning, what kind of state management do you use or see commonly used with web components?
You still have to go through security with PreCheck. It's usually faster and requires fewer steps that non-PreCheck passengers have to go through.

I used to fly up the East Coast and back every other week and I couldn't imagine doing it without it. Seeing the 1-hour standard line and instead making it through PreCheck in less than 5 minutes. I would totally use a self-service system.

When people get PreCheck the normal reaction is "That was easy, why doesn't everyone do that?" I joke that the real "test" when you sign up for PreCheck is can you successfully book the appointment and show up?
>I tend to agree, we saw bright and clear as day with the “war on drugs” that being more vicious to addicts didn’t work and the problem only grew.

Drug use has grown much faster under the current regime of tolerance of drug use. There were lots of problems with the war on drugs, but the idea that it didn't reduce drug use isn't based on evidence.

As an analogy, skin cancer had been rising despite sunscreen.
This is the same with my wife. She didn't care about what phones anyone had, she just found that her group chats with iPhone friends (when she had Android) were janky, as you describe. She doesn't care about apps or phones, but we got her an iPhone because she wants her chats to work well.
That PDF is the jury instructions, not a finding.
2×4 Lumber Sizes – The History Behind the Mystery
> Instead, Apple is a mafia that shakes down all the vendors for the right to sell in their semi-open market square.

I think they actually have a monopsony since you can only sell to apple. If there were other app stores, you could sell to them instead.

"In economics, a monopsony is a market structure in which a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers. The microeconomic theory of monopsony assumes a single entity to have market power over all sellers as the only purchaser of a good or service. This is a similar power to that of a monopolist, which can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, where multiple buyers have only one seller of a good or service available to purchase from."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony

(And they probably have a monopoly wrt iphone customers)
I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple
I'm pretty sure they anticipated this attitude in Revelation 3:15

Indifference is worse than extreme atheism or fundamentalism because those two options are actually concerned about others

The indifferent person could care less whether you believe or don't, it's your own "individual responsibility", they owe nothing to you and you owe nothing to them

Widespread indifference will bring about the slow dismantlement of society
I should have added a caveat that they couldn't police content, only high-level concerns like security (e.g., want to have a porn app store, go nuts, but make sure it's secure).
Linux Firmware DB (Lfwdb.com)
Linux-firmware is a git repository full of proprietary binary files used for component firmware. These blobs are loaded onto component internal RAM at operating system boot and serve to configure the runtime behavior of the component. There is little to no visibility in terms of what these blobs do. I’m not opposed to proprietary software; it has it’s place. However, with the emphasis on open source in the Linux project, the proprietary nature of linux-firmware makes it stand out to me.

The Linux Firmware Database aims to shine light on this unknown territory.
> ML is far too unreliable and doctors too illiterate for medical imagery diagnostics to be safe without an extremely careful approach.

"Safe" isn't always the only objective. In some cases access to "unsafe" medical AI is better than nothing.

Your mindset is shaped by living in a wealthy country. Do you know much about the medical systems of countries with $1000 GDP per capita? Most poor people in these countries don't have access to a doctor. The wait times in public are so long and cumbersome (and still cost an arm and a leg) that they don't even bother going. Then they die. It's not the country's fault, that's just the reality of poverty, there aren't enough trained doctors.

The only honest comparison therefore is not always "doctor vs AI" it's "nothing vs AI".
I wish RocketChat supported UnifiedPush.
I'm sure the marketing for legalized Meth will be more responsible (just like it is for everything else that isn't good for us).

What is the compulsion to find some tiny fragment of an argument to go against the obvious? Maybe it's because you'd need an absolutely idealized scenario to take legalizing drug use seriously.

You know those countries that legalized drugs? Feel free to look up how well that's going.
Drug use is illegal.
Assault is illegal.
Robbery is illegal.
Rape is illegal.

Enforce the laws.

My car was broken into in San Francisco, robbed in broad daylight. The police told me to just turn it in to my insurance.

Who pays insurance? We do.

So I got robbed and you all who pay for insurance got robbed.

I wonder why.
A judgement notwithstanding the verdict allows a judge to throw out a jury verdict.