AFAIK this is false, though I could be wrong. I believe cancelling the account is separate from revoking the apps. I think Apple has only deleted installed apps off of user’s phones in rare, exceptional cases, such as actively malicious apps.
Can anyone confirm if I am recalling this correctly?
Apple probably won’t delete the app from user phones, but it won’t be available to new users anymore (those who have never downloaded the app using their Apple account) and Epic will be unable to submit new updates to the App Store, which in practice kills the app
Animated GIFs are supported by iPhone. This outputs animated gifs. Animated gifs are the standard cross-platform format.
webm is no less standard than mp4. The battle of webm versus ogg versus mp4 (which refers to h.263 and successors) is mostly a question of technical communities (and Apple versus Google versus Firefox). Each platform supports their own subset, based on what they value. At this point, as far as marketshare, Chrome is in the lead.
Apple is throwing its weight behind mp4/h.263 mostly to keep open standards from raining on their proprietary, closed garden. There's no technical reason for it.
Most of my pages have videos transcoded to all three, but I think if they're going to output just one, webm is probably the best format to go with. Most users won't download all three; they'll download one and share it. For that, webm is the right choice. Otherwise, you'll run into more problems when Apple users try to share patent-encumbered MP4 files and have others not be able to view them. Outside animated gifs, someone needs to break; might as well be iPhone.
If you have a problem with that, complain to Apple; they could include webm and off cost-free. They choose to strip it out in order to screw you over.
The reasoning I've seen for iOS/Safari not supporting webm: there isn't hardware support on the iPhone, which would hurt battery life. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16319651
However, I think that would be poor judgement on Apple's part. I mean, sure, preventing someone from watching a webm might preserve battery life, but why stop there: imagine the savings if they were to strip iOS down to merely being able to make phone calls!
Let the user consume whatever media they want, and if that media drains battery, that's on the user for making that choice. I can see that Apple wouldn't want people to complain about iPhone battery life if webm took over the web, but then I wouldn't mind some minor nag at the beginning of playback to the effect of "hey, this video you're playing may drain your battery faster than you might otherwise expect, so take it up with whoever is serving this content to provide an alternative encoding for iOS".
That was fascinating, not so much for the technical discussion, as the presumptions behind it. That discussion views users as pure consumers, and doesn't even contemplate a human being might want to make a video, a web page, or share a video file (except through Youtube).
So you get free stuff, and you poison the environment of reviews for the rest of us.
I wish we could figure out some incentive for people -- both individually and corporately -- to behave less selfishly, but it seems to be a hard problem.
Another name for it is being maliciously or callously antisocial. I wish fewer people desired to tear apart the social fabric for short term personal gain. A world where people could trust each other would be a better world for everyone including you.
Great, meat SHOULD cost a fortune. The actual cost of meat is not what you pay for it, the only reason it’s even affordable is because the taxpayer shoulders the burden of the farm subsidies. Cut those out and a $5 Big Mac would cost almost $15.
Add to that the environmental impact, insane water usage, and the fact that meat production will continue to destroy economies through pandemics, and it should cost 10-15x more than it does now.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but this doesn't seem like it could be true. My Dad always raised cattle as a pastime, just a handful, one for meat and sold the rest. Never subsidized, and he usually broke just about even. A big mac has a fifth pound of beef. $75 a pound for ground beef? He'd buy hundreds. So would I, and everyone else. Why bother cutting out steaks, just grind the whole thing down.
Agricultural subsidies that affect beef, either directly or indirectly, have been in place in the US for almost a century. So either your father is quite old, did not live in the US, or that meat was subsidized.
OK, but I'm asking for -how-, truly. My father is getting up there, but still raises cattle to this day. He buys them as calves, and sells them the next year. They mainly eat grass and hay, but admittedly there is -some- corn feed in the winter, which I understand as one source of subsidy, but I can't see it amounting to much in the grand scheme just based on the amount. When selling them, after accounting for initial cost, medicine, and extras, he breaks even. And that's at today's 'cheap' beef prices.
Industrial Carrie farming has additional costs. Like wise they need to be transported, butchered, packaged, etc. This adds cost.... Your dad's break even is still losing money for anyone doing this as a business.
You don’t need taxes to offset subsidies, of course. You just need to end the subsidies. But yeah, there are likely major environmental externalities that could be eliminated by taxation.
People could afford to eat beef (albeit less of it) at 1800s levels of wealth per capita.
Currently high quality beef imitations like B-On are not quite cost competitive with real ground beef. Basically it's taken us an additional ~100yr of supply chain growth to get to a technological point where plant beef is priced like beef was 100yr ago.
I feel very comfortable saying that any change that hits the low level commodities that underpin these things, fuel, grain, etc. would just exacerbate that difference and set plant based "transition foods" back.
Most people in society like meat so it makes sense we subsidize it. This is progressive. Otherwise only the wealthy could eat meat. The wealthy actually pay more to eat meat as they pay the majority of the taxes that go into these subsidies so nearly everyone can afford meat in the market. Once again, this is progressive.
Just like roads. Most people in society want to be able to freely travel where they want and when they want to. So we subsidize roads as a society where the wealthy pay more in terms of taxes but everyone gets to use the roads.
It's a representative democracy. People vote for representatives that then propose bills and spending policy and vote on them. Elect officials or run for office yourself if you think your ideas are better and more attractive.
Who should be the authority for what society finds value in, which policies are invoked, how taxes are distributed and spent if not the representatives of the people? Clerics? Doctors? Lawyers? Scientists? Sociologists? Bartenders?
If true then hopefully people agree to mandate that we value these negative externalities more than subsidized farming. Anything is possible if people can persuade others it's worth doing and that the trade offs are worthwhile.
If I remember correctly, when you start playing the game, they match you against actual bots, which are pretty much unskilled. Maybe that’s why he uses that word.
