I don’t mean to ask this in an accusatory gotcha way I’m just wondering what your stance is on someone warning their coworkers in Portland, or somewhere else that there are “looting communists around so be careful.” Or something similar referring to a blm protest. Do you feel this is also appropriate in a workplace channel?
I guess agree to disagree? I personally don’t believe that these sorts of conversations are work appropriate and I’m wondering whether or not they become inappropriate when the poster disagrees with what’s being posted. The only way I could see this being taken as an accusatory gotcha is if your world view being questioned in any sense is a personal attack. Which is pretty par for the course for older millennials tbh.
This is a weak take. Are we saying that any feature built into a web browser is desirable by virtue of the products popularity? 99% of chrome users use it because they recognize the interface from school laptops. Do you really want to live in this world where massive corporations can put whatever they want in their products and the justification is “yeah well people still downloaded it?”
No, we are saying that a site owner should not get to choose which features of the browser the users decide to use. It's the same reason why HN is dogpiling on any site that announces "Only works in Google Chrome", "Best viewed in Safari" or, for older users, "Designed for IE".
One of the reasons why users decided to jump ship to browsers implemneting more advanced security features (which invariably including some sort of malware/phishing actors filter) was the realisation that even a site that has been safe to visit before may serve you malicious content. PHP.net, for instance, was compromised in a way that is eerily similar to what the author here describes - JS files were variably serving malware depending on certain conditions [0], and the first warning anyone got was GSB blocking it. You can read and compare the outrage that 'it can't be true' that particular blocking has caused at your own convenience [1].
Whilst you can convince the users to jump ship to some fringe browser that does not use the technology (and I do invite you to try to find one which does not use either Google, Microsoft or Tencent filters and has at least 0.1% of global usage!), it is a losing proposition from the start. The take is: the vast majority of users is actually comfortable and happy to get this message, as long as they can trust that it is warranted.
Should filters be hosted and adjusted by a major technology company like Google? Probably not, and some indepdendent non-profit hosting them (for the sake of the argument, even StopBadware that kick-started the whole mess [2]) would be welcome to try to take that responsibility. But the filters are here to stay until we come up with something better as a solution.
The problem is that the process is opaque so you aren't even given a hint as to why the site is blacklisted. Security filters, fine, but at least tell the developers what the violation is so that it can be fixed. It's the same in the play store controversies, the developers aren't told what's wrong, the app is just taken down. This lack of transparency is the real issue.
I think patreon would be great for your case. You already have 99 backers on Kickstarter who seemed to pledge a hefty average. It would take longer to get the Kickstarter lump sum but it would also keep generating income. If you make one you’ll have at least one patron (me)
I don’t know I hear things like with ___s population they can just throw people at the problem. Has that historically been true though? Why then have China and India not always led the way as super powers in the first place?
>Has that historically been true though? Why then have China and India not always led the way as super powers in the first place?
Yes. Who said they hadn't?
For the biggest part of history, until Europe got forward after kickstarting the industrial revolution (along with the help of colonization and the exploiting of the New World), China was the #1 economy worldwide, and quite more advanced in many ways than the rest of the world.
E.g. in the Song dynasty (900-1200 A.D): "These [policies] made China a global leader, leading some historians to call this an "early modern" economy many centuries before Western Europe made its breakthrough".
1500 A.D.: In 1500, China was the largest economy in the world, followed closely by India, both with estimated GDP's of approximately $100 billion. France was a distant third at approximately 18 billion, followed closely by Italy and Germany. What is now the United Kingdom ranked 10th, at barely one quarter the output of France (Figure 1).
Heck, China was prosperous all the way back to 20-100 B.C ("Technological innovations, such as the wheelbarrow, paper and a seismograph, were invented during this period")
"China's economy led its European counterpart by leaps and bounds at the start of the Renaissance. China was so far ahead, in fact, that economic historian Eric L. Jones once argued that the Chinese empire "came within a hair's breadth of industrializing in the fourteenth century.""
> "China's economy led its European counterpart by leaps and bounds at the start of the Renaissance. China was so far ahead, in fact, that economic historian Eric L. Jones once argued that the Chinese empire "came within a hair's breadth of industrializing in the fourteenth century.""
China had an iron industry earlier than that - 12th century, IIRC. It was all starting - more iron resulting in iron tools all over the place, process improvements, and so on. But then some bureaucrats (mandarins, which I think is the same thing) noticed that some of the "wrong" people were getting rich in all this, and the government forcibly shut it all down in the name of preserving social order.
That's one of the strengths of America - more than anywhere else in the world, if you have the right idea, it doesn't matter if you're the "wrong" person.
America has that story, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. America may not have "class" restrictions like other places, but it sure does have "race" restrictions. And even when the wrong people manage to make it, they (as a group anyway) will still have it taken away from them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
There were a national debate on economy centered on the circulation of iron and salt. A representative work is "盐铁论” discussions on iron and salt.
Chinese civilization peaked in tang (in terms of international influence) and later song (in terms of tech and culture).
Then it's a steady declination till the end of Qing.
Ancient China was quite liberal and diverse even in modern standards. But the history took a reverse turn to more totalitarian direction. (China never practiced authoritarian regime, even today, people just cannot admit or bother to learn the nuances of modern China political system, I am so very much disappointed there is no modern day Tocqueville on China, what a pity!)
Xi's approach is fairly conventional in terms of Chinese tradition. But it has swapped the Confucius core with a blended scientific core through learning from Communism. This is a dangerous direction, as there is quite a risk of how to continue this tradition across generations, history has shown that declination and degradation is inevitable within 2-300 years time period. It will be interesting to see how Xi handles his succession. It might be quite disastrous. But it also has a lot of institutional safety backup.
Who knows! To me, this is the single most political affair in the next 10-20 years.
Xi is not a dictator, his life experience does not lend the ambition, nor his power can dominate the check and balance in China. Whoever labels xi a dictator is fooling his audience for some unspeakable purpose.
Well, he does need to be voted Secretary by the Central Committee. The change that was made recently was to remove term limits - but in theory he can still be voted out. Weak sauce I know compared to judicial oversight but hey, you asked.
I agree with the GP that labeling Xi a "dictator" is hyperbole. I wouldn't even say he's as entrenched as Putin.
For any behavior you believe Xi is doing that showcase dictatorship, I can guarantee that the popular support is secured beforehand, in proportional to the impact of the actions.
Check and balanced exit, as one example, in the ways of how policies are executed between different branches and sectors.
Like if Xi wants to do some thing, the functioning branch has a great deal of influence, as the government officials are not refreshed between different government terms. Like many of Xi's policy can be effectively nullified, if the policy really were not effectively mobilizing the functioning units.
One might fancy that Xi can install his own men that is so effective that the above check is rendered ineffective. That's possible, but it seems even in the imperial era, a sane emperor was not able to do that [1]. Nor I see any evidence that Xi had acquired any such superhuman power.
These are unfortunately not as visible as western systems.
But again, I can only state qualitatively, in the sense that the check and balance is so much more effective than what a lot of people imagine. I am not an expert that can give you a systematic description of the details. I once again lament the missing of a modern day Tocqueville...
> Whoever labels xi a dictator is fooling his audience for some unspeakable purpose.
So anyone who claims Xi is a dictator has evil motives? No room for honest disagreement? The facts are not only clear and unambiguous, but also so widely spread that everyone knows? Nonsense. "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees is not only wrong but evil" is a very cheap rhetorical trick. You sound like...
Well, you sound like the American left. And the American right. And the Republican Party. And the Democratic Party. What you don't sound like, though, is a reasonable person having a reasonable discussion, who has evidence on his side.
European powers were fairly dominant in the world when the industrial revolution started there. The causation link isn't clear to me (if one caused the other or vice-versa - I'd love to hear from people who know better), but the fact of the matter is that local energy sources could be used (coal, as early as the 1700s) so the benefits were clear and local first, and a huge jump in progress ensued across those economies over the last few centuries.
Transitioning to less "dangerous" fossil fuels happened once the economies were already pretty robust and machines were doing the work of hundreds of men at once, because countries got richer and as their quality of life improved they increasingly walked away from dangerous stuff (the deaths per TWh of coal and brown coal are horrifying[0] and unions and education of the population surely had their role to play in driving change in the way those countries dealt with fossil fuels).
Europe then increasingly moved away from coal (not quite done with it though: Germany is still so anti-nuclear that they are the second biggest users behind Russia and iirc the first next importer of coal-based energy - from Russia), but that's the kind of luxury one can afford when the economy is already in decent shape. That's also in part why, while currently China is the single largest producer of coal in the world (to sustain its growth year-on-year), they're also pretty aware that they've got to switch pretty fast to something better (i.e. nuclear) because the honeymoon won't last forever (and I have no doubt that a few generations there will pay a high price in the future for that - cue social unrest down the road).
So at the very least, the idea that we can "throw people at the problem" isn't entirely devoid of sense when you consider how many people in Europe dedicated their lives to this brand-new energy-dense coal for a couple generations, and in doing so definitely sacrificed their health and lives in exchange for rapid social progress (that they might or might not have benefited from..).
I've been wondering, is Joe Biden popularizing "the fact of they matter is..."? (Again? As I appreciate he probably didn't invent it, but he sure uses it a lot.) I now suddenly see it everywhere...
We can not be polarized to the point that uplifting the nations founding principle is seen as taking a side. I just don’t get your logic. At that point anyone encouraging voting is subtly siding with Democrats.
I’m not a fan of this take. I think dancing and smiles is a great way to veil something more dangerous. I’m not saying tik tok specifically is doing so but just because something looks like a toy doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous underneath.
I sympathize with what you’re saying but I don’t think you should be advising people to write off a diplomatic career if they have kids. I like many other people had a very volatile childhood for no real reason. I don’t think I particularly minded the moving a lot and enjoyed making new friends in different places. It’s also worth noting that if your kids are anything like my friends who grew up in really stable suburbs they’re going to be peeling their eyes out in boredom and waiting for the first chance they get to take off and go as far away from that stable suburb as they can. All I’m saying is that every kid is different and what was bad for you may be great for another kid and what sounds amazing to you may feel like hell to someone else.
It really makes me wonder about why this letter, out of the presumably many about App Store review, is the one that Tim Cook would read and forward. From where I’m standing it looks like you’d have to come off as an otherwise huge fan to have your criticism taken into account.
I used to be the person in that letter, for years, and suffice it to say you're correct - the Apple community, at least on Twitter, is divided into those who Get It and understand that what Apple is doing is better for humanity, and those that don't.
Only the people that find their way to the 'right' arguments are consistently welcomed - more than a few famous people in the community had to backpedal into saying Epic is just as bad because they want to make money off app sellers too, and not only that, they _entrapped_ Apple.
Daring Fireball plays a key role in what exactly 'Get It' means - ex. the nauseating amount of people saying all this is cool because something something Epic is a big corporation too.
The reason I, and I assume many others, have less of a problem with that is that you can fairly easily still download and play fortnite without the Play Store. As far as I know that’s not an option on iOS outside of jailbreaking your phone.
It's App Store policy and payment handling within apps, not so much about being to install it. I don't like to see trillion new payment providers, I also don't like to see monopolies. It's a very long and big discussion.
But I do wonder, can and _would_ you do payments in a non store app with their own payment provider? E.g. the fortnite you have downloaded and installed outside of the play store?
The lawsuit is about app distribution on iOS as well as the 30% cut.
There won't be anymore than what the web already has. Stripe or Paypal would likely be popular choices. Payment processors are required by law to be PCI compliant, though that doesn't guarantee they are.
Yes I would do payments in a non app store app with their own payment provider if I felt I trusted the app. It's no different than paying on any website (there's no Apple review process for websites).
If you already downloaded if from outside the app store, why do you need to use an in-app payment provider?
At this point it's just like any software on your computer, you can pay outside of it, and use a code or similar to indicate you paid for it.
It's only a matter of convenience to want to pay in-app. It can also be a lock-in strategy from the developer - and this is what this whole thread is about.
We already do it over the internet, there are many players as payment gateway. To secure it, the payment systems need to improve and have proper notifications, 2FA etc. and not rely on benevolence and whims of the monopolies.
