David is quite accomplished, but in this instance he is simply wrong. For two reasons:
1. All the reasons he cites that depend on "what the metal does" being different and quite a bit more complex than what is surfaced in C apply equally to machine/assembly language. So the CPU's instruction set is not a low-level language? Interesting take, but I don't think so: it is the lowest level language that is exposed by the CPU.
2. The other reasons boil down to "I would like to do this optimization", and that is simply inapplicable.
> The "C is not a high level assembler" crowd, in my view, is making a category error, conflating C itself with an ISO standard and abstract machine concept coming decades later.
"C isn't not a high level assembler" captures it almost perfectly, and it also captures the documented intent of the people who created the ANSI C standard, which was that ANSI C should not preclude the (common) use of C as a high-level assembly language.
Here the quote:
C code can be non-portable. Although it strove to give programmers the opportunity to write
truly portable programs, the C89 Committee did not want to force programmers into writing
portably, to preclude the use of C as a “high-level assembler”: the ability to write machine-
specific code is one of the strengths of C. It is this principle which largely motivates drawing the
distinction between strictly conforming program and conforming program (§4).
For a good while, Mac hardware was held back because of hardware design. That changed soon after Ive left. Maybe the same can happen with software now.
I want the home button back, TouchID or no. It's (I'm not joking) among the best applications of computer UI ever and it has not been obsoleted, they just abandoned it for worse options.
Cell phones from other brands have Touch ID and it works great. Apple has Touch ID on their iPads and it also works great. As it does on the MacBooks. As it does on the iPhone SE. It should be brought back.
It works OK for me on Mac, but all touchID drops to about 50/50 for me in Winter, under the (otherwise) best circumstances. Dry air, I guess.
On iPhone, specifically, it was awful for me. I was too likely to have wet hands (raining, just got out of shower, whatever—even dried, the higher moisture in my skin meant it didn't work) or gloves on or some other problem that made it fail. Trying to hold it the right way, one-handed, to get a finger in the right position (waaaaay down near the bottom) was also a high-risk maneuver for a drop, and was not a way I'd otherwise have tried to hold the device.
I am not a fan, simply because of the screen real estate that needs to be sacrificed.
Other phones tend to have it on the back, and I have heard there's good progress in having embedded thumbprint readers in the screen.
I have, however, really come to like Face ID.
[UPDATED TO ADD] I think that it's interesting that folks ding comments they disagree with. I upvoted all the responses to my comment, even though they may disagree with me, because they were made in good faith, and contribute to the discussion.
> My Google Pixel 10 has both an in-the-screen fingerprint reader, and a Face ID, and I use both. They're both useful in different situations.
That sounds great.
> Some iPads have the finger print reader on the side of the device, on the power button.
My main iPad is a Mini (latest gen). It has the Touch ID on the top. I find it to be a bit "flaky." It often misses prints. However, I think it works amazingly well, given that it's just a strip.
I also have an iPad Pro, with FaceID. That works nicely. I like that it works in both portrait and landscape. That didn't happen in my older phones, but seems to be the case in my latest (17 Pro).
>I have heard there's good progress in having embedded thumbprint readers in the screen.
Samsung phones have had a perfectly working finger print reader under the screen for many years now. There is no more progress to be made, it is complete.
Face ID is severely lacking compared to MS Hello, simple as. It's at best 50:50 hit/miss compared to Hello which logs me in always. Granted, that figure doesn't include false positives, but the difference is substantial and makes Apple's implementation look really lame, to the point I'd like to see it removed.
See there are users who like Liquid Glass, just as there are users who like TouchID. A lot of Apple’s best work turned out to be quite polarizing at the time.
iOS 7’s design language was almost universally panned, but if it were “the wrong decision,” other phones wouldn’t have adopted similar design language. Material appeared just a year later in 2014. It wasn’t bad, it was just arbitrary.
(“I like Liquid Glass! I like Liquid Glass!” I insist as i slowly shrink down into the size of a corn cob)
On the topic of Alan Dye and the home button though, the swipe gesture interface they introduced when they removed the home button strikes me as one of few genuinely successful system-level Apple design innovations in recent years. That at least seems to have happened under his leadership. Can’t think of much else good to say about what I associate with design under him.
It’s my understanding that Chan Karunamuni was largely responsible for leading the iPhone X home buttonless interface, which, I agree, is fantastic and probably the best bit of UI to come out of Apple in years. Also, the Dynamic Island, which is less impactful, but really good and clever! Anyway, he’s excited about Lemay, so I am too. https://9to5mac.com/2025/12/05/acclaimed-apple-designer-says...
At this point, they are still as high on their own supply on the software side as they were on the hardware side in the heyday of butterfly keyboards, slow/overheating CPUs and broken screens.
I'm not willing to cede the point on hardware design for as long as their primary mouse product cannot be charged during use. It's such a simple and obvious mistake, like a throwback to the days of hockey-puck mice.
Not to mention its ergonomics issues. I held onto mine as long as possible because I loved the capacitive shell. Eventually I had to ditch it though to keep my wrist healthy.
Yes, "no obligation to admit" means they don't have any obligation whatsoever, and that includes doing so for any reason they see fit and not having to disclose those reasons (if any) to you.
It is exactly the same as "I don't have to let you in".
For example, I do not have an obligation to let people into my house. I can choose to let them in or decline them entry. But there are certain preconditions I cannot apply. I cannot, for example, say "you may come into my house only if you murder my neighbour". That's because I'm legally bound not to induce people to commit murder. It would obviously be disingenuous to say this means I have an "obligation to admit" them.
It's the same with immigration. They actually are legally bound in certain ways - an immigration official can't assault you for instance. It's not hard to imagine them being legally bound not to search people's phones. That doesn't mean "they have to admit people".
You're confusing yourself with irrelevant analogies. You can say, "you may come into my house only if you give me your unlocked phone," and an immigration official can't assault you because there are certain protections granted to foreigners against being randomly assaulted. It's also not hard to imagine them NOT being legally bound not to search people's phones, and if you're trying to say someone's breaking the law here then it's your burden of proof.
Of course I can say that. I can say "you can't come into my house if you're black" too. The point is that it's unethical. It would be unethical for me to search your phone before you entered my house, too. This is not complicated, I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding it.
The United States does have some rides about what border agents can and can not do. They can not sucker punch you, for example. They can request to see the contents of your phone and if you refuse they can choose to refuse you admittance into the country.
It’s not a question of fairness.
For what it’s worth I’m very much in favor of immigration and people visiting the United States, but this country and all others have the right to admit or not admit whomever they choose.
If I understand correctly, what this project does is take the actual postgresql sources, which are written in C, compile them to wasm and provide typescript wrappers. So you need the wasm to be able to use the C code from js/ts.
That adds extra unnecessary complexity. The code is written in C. There are C compilers for all CPUs. So just call the C code from <other language that's not JS>.
Yeah... I was super excited by this project when it was first announced--and would even use it from Wasm--but since it ONLY works in Wasm, that seemed way too niche.
1. All the reasons he cites that depend on "what the metal does" being different and quite a bit more complex than what is surfaced in C apply equally to machine/assembly language. So the CPU's instruction set is not a low-level language? Interesting take, but I don't think so: it is the lowest level language that is exposed by the CPU.
2. The other reasons boil down to "I would like to do this optimization", and that is simply inapplicable.
reply