skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Realistically, it's not fair to put many of the costs of iOS development on the App store. They would need to do it anyway. And if there were no App store, they would still be designing their product as a collection of independent apps. That's what MacOS is anyway. So they would still need to build all of the features for supporting apps into iOS, even if they never allowed any outside apps.
Sounds like a great opportunity for the US government to inform the people on what's the actual truth. You say Americans don't believe their government anymore? I wonder why...
A quick search seems to confirm this. A few sites list the number to be around ~1.3 billion people who speak English at all, with around ~360-380 million being native speakers. For example: https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/how-many-people-speak-eng....
One good reason why "honest" app vendors do this is because providing tech support for custom OS's (in addition to the wide variety of popular handsets) is more costly. They also might not want the responsibility - in case something like your banking app gets pwned by random malware, they want to blame the OS vendor. CYA is always a good strategy.

But if someone is seriously thinking client-side security works, yeah the app deserves your review - and probably some reversing, just for fun.
The US forcing the EU to unban Twitter and Facebook would be the ultimate overreach needed to solidify the plutocracy American society has become.
I mean, however flawed the EU may be, I think they are earnestly trying to protect the average person from the current paradigm of abusive data collection. Perfect can’t be the enemy of good.
Yes but there are Reagan's interests and Hitler's interests. You have no choice but to pick the lesser evil.
Surprised some American billionaire hasn't thrown 50 Milly into like 5 clones of tik Tok to see which one takes off?

there should be an easy pivot to an American equivalent but there hasn't been?

Or has there?
This has interesting implications for the Marvel canon, as the conflict between average humans and mutants is a primary plot driver for x-men
I mean, whatever proxy is directly in front of their backend. I don't pretend to know how it's set up, but something like nginx could nip this in the bud pretty quickly as an emergency mediation, was my point.
There are only about 400 million native English speakers. You can't just add up the population of English speaking countries, because that excludes immigrants living in these countries, and people born there who did not learn English as their first language.

As for people who learned it later, even in Europe, only about 40% self-identify as being able to speak English. If you visit places like China or Indonesia, you'll soon notice that very few people know more than a few basic words in English once you leave the tourist areas.
> Facebook, X, etc are staffed by Americans who have a vested interest in the country remaining functional. The CEOs of those companies are arrestable.

I suspect this is our fundamental disagreement. I disagree with both of these statements. Facebook's & X's executives have a vested interested in power and money for themselves and their peers. These oligarchs are in practice above the law, just like China's and Russia's oligarchs are. This decision only gives them even more control. It's bad for those US citizens who are not in the oligarch class.
"Could well be" is just a "could well be". It is not actually an argument, because there is an infinite range of "could well be". It "could well be" that we exist because the Great Simulator simply put us here, but you can only distinguish between outcomes based on actual observations.

If you want to invoke "well, things just happen because there's so many rolls of the metaphorical dice", your logical number of rolls is determined by the observable universe. When you step into hypotheticals beyond that, you must step into all of them all at once, not just pick one, smoke some hash and goggle at the one possibility you picked out. That's the mistake people make. And there's so many "well, it could be..." that in effect they cancel each other out and you can't do any logic on them.
>> The algorithm used in the US was apparently banned in China for being too addictive.

> Source?

The same source as everything Covid related: Trust me, bro.
>> Rather than calling it "renegging on an explicitly-legislated compromise", it's a "loophole" that needs "closing."

> You're assigning a single mind to a group of uncoordinated actors to create a hypocrisy that probably doesn't exist in any specific individual.

POSIWID
> TikTok users who use the Chinese version

The what now? There are no Chinese nationals using TikTok. It's banned there. Like it's now banned in the US.
It's not twisted and not ad hominem. No attack on a person, just a statement of the relative difficulty of appreciating something truly new when cutting edge looks fake.
I don't think so. It probably stops them from using US-based CDNs to host content, but that only makes it less efficient, not inaccessible.
Why would you love that?
1) A single party apparatus determines something must be removed, and by fiat it is immediately removed

2) Multiple agencies investigate and make a determination that a real threat exists, the threat and measures to resolve it are debated strongly in two houses of Congress between strongly opposing parties, an passes with bi-partisan support, the law is signed by the President, then the law is upheld through multiple challenges in multiple courts and panels of judges, finally being upheld by the Supreme Court of the country. And no, this is not yet a situation where the country has fallen into autocracy so the institutions have all been corrupted to serve the executive (I.e., not like Hungary, Venezuela, Russia, etc.).

If you think these are the same... I'll just be polite and say the ignorance expressed in that post is truly stunning and wherever you got your education has deeply failed — yikes.
I am a customer. I eat tomatoes. I choose which tomatoes to buy on my personal preferences.
It’s Microsoft’s new (not really), super-secure technology called TrustUs! Just TrustUs to do what’s best.
so, what your saying is that you admit SpaceX is a world class provider of launch services, but you don't like it cause it's not THAT much better than everything else?
The GP's statement doesn't work with reality TV or televised sports. Both of those are produced with a lot of human effort, and the cycle time for new content is way too large to form addictions.

Gambling, alcohol, and gacha games are clearly addictive and frequently are not set up to be in the best interests of the users.
i did this at age 30 https://hackernoon.com/no-zero-days-my-path-from-code-newbie...

good luck
TikTok Forced Staff to Swear Oaths to Uphold China's 'Socialist System'
Yes? The person you replied to was pretty explicit in drawing a comparison to vices like gambling and alcohol, which are indeed usually regulated. Gacha games are also being recognized as thinly veiled gambling and regulated as such.
Brick, stucco, concrete siding are all fire resistant and commonly used in construction in the last 25 years.

Insulation plays into combustability as well, where mineral / rock wool has thermal mass, does not ignite, but us construction has recently favored fiberglass and cellulose for the the costs.
Yes, people from the US always say concrete is expensive and wood is cheap. And unless you are designing a tent (by the way, zinc is way cheaper than wood for a tent), only people from the US say that.

There's something distorting your economy. Concrete is incredibly cheap as a material, extremely prone to use in a large supply chain, and requires way less labor than wood.

You make houses siting over finely built wood lattices... how much do you pay to the people building those? Because I can't imagine it being justifiable with Brazilian salaries.
You could have read either the law or the decision, linked in the comments here, to get the answer to this question.

From the decision:

> Second, the Act establishes a general designa-

> tion framework for any application that is both (1) operated

> by a “covered company” that is “controlled by a foreign ad-

> versary,” and (2) “determined by the President to present a

> significant threat to the national security of the United

> States,” following a public notice and reporting process.

> §2(g)(3)(B). In broad terms, the Act defines “covered com-

> pany” to include a company that operates an application

> that enables users to generate, share, and view content and

> has more than 1,000,000 monthly active users. §2(g)(2)(A).

> The Act excludes from that definition a company that oper-

> ates an application “whose primary purpose is to allow us-

> ers to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel in-

> formation and reviews.” §2(g)(2)(B).
That’s not at all the same as banning the algorithm.
Maybe it was just a genuine outlet for interconnected entertainment compared to other platforms. American's have always sought similar entertainment since the dawn of the 'couch potato.' Now we can go back to consuming curated narratives/influence on our good ole traditional grams and tubes.
https://www.tiktok.com/@claimslife1
What does this have to do with the First Amendment? How would this be different from an antitrust ruling that requires Alphabet to divest Youtube, but Alphabet decides to shut down Youtube instead?
Until we ban Denmark as an "adversary" because they won't just hand over Greenland. Or Mexico for setting tarrifs against us (because we declared tarrifs first).

Lovely precedent we just set here.
Separation of concerns is valid if you look at website as a document.

If you look at website as an application components are valid approach.

I don’t need a framework to make documents - I need framework to make web applications that is why components won so I agree.
English is literally the most commonly spoken language in the world. No language in the world will fit your criteria if you want more than two thirds of the global population to speak it.
But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA.

Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA.

What changed now?

Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone that their speech is not allowed.

Looks like a major erosion of first amendment protections.
That’s why the Huawei story seems different.

I think it’s about this attempt to block that actually makes the opponent stronger. The export restrictions were designed to weaken their competitiveness not enhance!

The restrictions blocked asml and Samsung and others from trading with China. Now China can just replace them. It seems.
I meant that at some point, with ever more costly and numerous disasters, the premium insurance companies would have to charge to be able to properly insure their clients would be too much for said clients to stomach, which would prevent anyone from getting anything insured. This has nothing to do with government interference. At some point the equation simply doesn't work anymore.
Apple used to sell prorec and Sorenson stuff. Usually you could get them with a QuickTime pro license, final cut license, or similar
> Gacha games are also being recognized as thinly veiled gambling and regulated as such.

Where are they being regulated at all?
Any country has the right to this kind of ban, that's what national sovereignty is all about.

A different issue is whether doing it is the right decision or not.

And another issue is the hypocrisy. When China did it, the unanimous opinion from the US (both the official stance and what one could hear/read from regular people, e.g. HN comments) was that such bans were authoritarian and evidence that there was no freedom of speech in China. But now suddenly it's a perfectly fine and even obvious/necessary thing to do...

Being neither from China nor from the US, this paints the US (who have benefitted a lot from riding the moral high horse of free market, etc. for decades) in a quite bad light.

Should the EU ban US social networks for pure economic reasons (so we roll our own instead of providing our data and money to US companies, which would almost surely be good for our economy)? The argument for not doing it used to be that freedom should be above domestic interests, one embraces the free market even if some aspects of it are harmful because overall it's a win. But the US is showing it doesn't really believe in that principle, and probably never has.
What are you talking about? The decision was unanimous.
2025, despite all this going on for four years, Gorusch complains bitterly about having had to rule on the case in less than a fortnight
Musical.ly was not China only and I knew musical.ly before it was the predecessor of tiktok. From how I recall it, it had mostly American users. Was the split during the rebranding?
> The US so far has no qualms with it if an American is in control of the strings. That's where China differs

Legally, there is no issue with TikTok being Japanese, Korean, Indian, Saudi, Polish, Ugandan, Brazilian or Mexican. Just not owned by a foreign adversary country.
Isn’t that already happening? Fox news parroting russian talking points to sow division among the working class population of this country? Why is that fine? Because they get Rs in power in the process?
> We're not cutting down forests for it, either.

The largest share of the illegal wood extracted from Brazil goes to the US.
But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA.
Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publication s were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA.

What changed now?

Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone that their speech is not allowed.

Looks like a major erosion of first amendment protections.
A Trillion Points of Failure
I’m not going to claim I’ve solved this and figured out “the way” to use LLMs for tests, but I’ve found that copy-and-pasting code + tests and then providing a short essay about my own reasoning of edge cases followed with something along the lines of
“your job is to find out what edge cases my reasoning isn’t accounting for, cases that would expose latent properties of the implementation not exposed via its contract, cases tested for by other similar code, domain exceptions I’m not accounting for, cases that test unexplored code paths, cases that align exactly with chunking boundaries or that break chunking assumptions, or any other edge cases I’m neglecting to mention that would be useful both to catch mistakes in the current code and to handle foreseeable mistakes that could arise from refactoring in the future. Try to understand how the existing test cases are defined to catch possibly problematic inputs and extend accordingly. Take into account both the api contract and the underlying implementation and approach this matter from an adversarial perspective where the goal of the tests is to challenge the author’s assumptions and break their code” has been useful.
I will bookmark this and come back in 6 months. I have seen too many "platform X is replacing playform Y" hype cycles to write long essays about this.
Yes.

What is China for Americans, for us Europeans, is the USA.

Some argue that it's even worse for Europeans because the Chinese military and government can't reach you while in the USA. And there is no safe place for Europeans from the US government, unless they move to China or Russia.
Was their lawyer William Stryker?
This is the argument that a group of toddlers make when one of them gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar. "Yeah...yah....but Mrs. Spangler, I saw Sally steal a cookie last week". OK, cool....your friend is stealing one now and currently has their hand in the cookie jar.
I don't get what you're getting at here. But, yes, I feel safer with a cyclist going slow on a shared sidewalk rather than going at full speed.

For some reason, cyclists like to close their eyes when their fellow cyclists run stop lights, cut people off, hit pedestrians. Oh but cars are more dangerous! Yeah, no shit, but that doesn't excuse cyclists not caring about pedestrians.
> (...) to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran or an entity controlled by such a country

This is very limited and will not prevent indirect sales (like we now see happening with Russian oil for example).

It is also why I said "indirectly".
Media flat out.
Drew's Mentoring Maxims
Are you serious? What company doesn’t categorize labor and expenses, especially for capitalization and R&D purposes. There’s zero chance Apple doesn’t know. It’s 100% nonsense.

They know all the labor costs and revenue for each of their products. Every single one.

Zero chance Apple doesn’t categorize server allocation and assign those to budgets. Small companies do it.

So, the obvious answer is they’re lying. They’ve done it before, too. They’re doing it now.
You disagree that Facebook's employees have an interest in America remaining a functional country?
If you learn how to do SEO you can get lots of free volume. You need PMF though. The support is only needed if your product doesn't work well or is hard to understand.
Isn't https://www.tiktok.com exactly this?
We all know the Elephant in the room, that Israel‘s genocide in Palestine led to lots of criticism on Tik Tok, and that led the Israel lobby to push a Tik Tok ban.
I think that’s besides the point given the entity that is banning it. It’s because it’s Chinese. An equally addictive Western-made app would not have been banned.

And generally speaking as a culture we are too liberal to ban things for being too addictive. Again, showing that it is not relevant in this case since it will not inspire bans of other addictive (pseudo) substances on those grounds.
> But Russia is a greater immediate threat

I disagree; and it's the dismissal for the past 13-14 years of China as an immediate threat which is what has in part allowed China to become such a large longer-term threat.

> They would prefer a different rules based order than the one America would prefer

I would put it differently: China wants its own global hegemony instead of the U.S.' -- and that's understandable (everyone wants to rule the world). But if the U.S. doesn't want that to happen then it has to take steps to counter it.
I don't know if you are just ignorant about history and unwilling to Google, or if you are making the point that of course British did not force feed opium to the people.

What is very well established is that the british fought a war , literally called the opium war by Western historians themselves with the main objective of keeping their opium distribution into China open after the emperor banned it

Their action was akin to if some majority owner of Purdue pharma invades US and forces US government to "keep the oxy market open" while letting "people make their own decision".
If it reaches more than 1 million monthly active American users, it too can be subject to the same scrutiny under the law in question.
"anything you don't like (gambling, alcohol, gacha games, convenience foods, televised sports, reality TV)"

Respectively, heavily regulated, heavily regulated, poorly regulated but really has to toe the line to not fall into the first bucket, fairly regulated (with shifting attitudes about what they should be, but definitely not unregulated), probably only a problem because this is "gambling" again lately and has been regulated in the past and I suspect may well be more heavily regulated in the near future, and people probably would not generally agree this belongs in the list.
Yes, there is a distinction there. The issue is that it's a small part of the overall problem when looked at the larger scale. The overarching issues of political influence at odds with individual citizens, hostile engagement-maximizing algorithms, adversarial locked-down client apps, and selling influence to the highest bidder are all there with domestically-incorporated companies. The government's argument basically hinges on "but when these companies do something really bad we can force domestic companies to change but we can't do the same for TikTok". That's disingenuous to American individuals who have been on the receiving end of hostile influence campaigns for over a decade, disingenuous to foreign citizens not in the US or China who can't control any of this, and disingenuous to our societal principles as we're still ultimately talking about speech.
The Supreme Court has made only very narrow rulings around Bills of Attainder.

To me this bill seems problematic on that front in two directions. One is that it explicitly names a target of the ban. Secondly, it grants the president power to arbitrarily name more. Similar to how a King can declare certain Subjects be Attainded on His Whim.

But the petitioners (TikTok) did not raise this issue so the court did not have to decide on it. Instead they focused on the first amendment issue, which seems like a loser -- there is no speech present on TikTok that the law bans; any content on TikTok can be posted to red-blooded American apps like shorts or reels so the speech itself is not affected.
First amendment rights is the only argument that I agree with keeping TikTok alive. However if there is proof that China is manipulating the algorithm to feed the worst manipulative content to Americans then I do think there’s a national security concern here.
That limit is independent of the used algorithm.
Not saying it's not inaccurate, saying it's not Hyundai gathering the inaccurate info.
It’s very difficult to recreate the network effects of an app like TikTok. If it were easy, Zuckerberg would have already done it.
At least in Germany, for Gen Z, Facebook is quite dead and Instagram co-exists with TikTok, both with >70% of the cohort [1] using them. There is no clear winner. Anecdata, but for freshmen, TikTok is way more popular.

TikTok-based social media campaigns also e.g. managed to unexpectedly swing an election in Romania (for Georgescu, was later annulled).

[1] https://www.absatzwirtschaft.de/tiktok-vs-instagram-ein-verg... - sorry, I only found a German source
We've seen exponential improvements in LLM's coding abilities. Went from almost useless to somewhat useful in like two years.

Claude 3.5 is not bad really. I wanted to do a side project that has been on my mind for a few years, and Claude coded it in like 30 seconds.

So to say "we are not even close" seems strange. If LLMs continue to improve, they will be comparable to mid level developers in 2-3 years, senior developers in 4-5 years.
I’ve worked on apps like this for companies like this. What happens is that their IT department mandates an expensive pen test for suppliers, anti-root requirements are on the pen-tester’s generic checklist, and most companies won’t push back on the pen test results. If you do, they normally fold and admit it’s not required.
No, X doesn't have a corporate governance structure that requires Chinese government control, because it is a US company.

Companies in China (and especially those of prominence) have formal structures and regulations that require them to cooperate with the government, and sometimes require the companies to allow the government to intervene in operations if necessary.

It is not possible for a CCP official to show up to a board meeting at X and direct the company to take some action, because that isn't how US corporations work.