Given the no one has any idea about how much power the A19 Pro SOC will use for activity, what actual purpose would that serve?
They actually have both offline and streaming video playback time, which had been pretty standard for iPhone for a long time as their battery life measurements.
Almost. Having access to the internet requires a device, or public computer if available. A just society would at least maintain ability to interact with all government services through in-person and through post office. Universal access.
At least in some countries you can use a public computer at a library or other government-provided institution. I agree that it ideally shouldn't be required though.
This seems to be percieved as an explicit intended loophole. I've seen contests where they say "for free entry, go to website..." followed with "internet access can be obtained at libraries".
Obviously, the idea of "you don't have to pay to participate" has a strong legal footing, but I have to wonder if they can find a way to pivot that to "I don't have to acquire an Android/iOS device". Maybe they would develop a kiosk-mode version of the OS that will run apps tethered to a placeholder library account.
I hope people can see what I am saying here, but this is just what the Affordable Health Care Act was in the United States. The government forced up to buy health insurance from private companies, and no one saw a problem with that.
So having health care was dependent on a private third party.
> I don't care about competition, I care about the best product.
Competition is how you get to the best product. Lack of competition leads to malaise of product improvements as the market dominators are owning the space and happily exert their power over people.
> It's no different than going to a restaurant and them serving only Pepsi products.
There are two viable players for the average Joe in the phone market. There are I would guess 200-300 restaurants in my not so big town.
The number of choices matters a lot. If there were only two real option for restaurants around me, I would hope the management does not decide to be evil and lower food quality, jack up prices, or collude to only offer specific food while the other restaurant does not offer.
Also, in the restaurant example, we always have the option to buy our own food and cook at home. So to match the phone market situation, imagine cooking at home is illegal, and the only food you can eat is from two restaurants.
> Competition is how you get to the best product. Lack of competition leads to malaise of product improvements as the market dominators are owning the space and happily exert their power over people.
Competition means differentiating your product. You don’t have competition if both products are the same.
Apple is trying to differentiate by offering a curated experience. Google is trying to differentiate by offering less curation and more customizability. Both are valid.
It would be bad for competition if iOS and Android were just copies of each other. That would be malaise.
> Competition is how you get to the best product. Lack of competition leads to malaise of product improvements as the market dominators are owning the space and happily exert their power over people.
I think the malaise is when you require every company to take the exact same approach.
Let two companies take different approach. One is walled garden and the other is bazaar. I wish we had more walled gardens personally. I'm tired of wading through hundreds of results in Amazon through shady third party sellers. At this point I go to Best Buy, knowing that they won't sell me absolute garbage. Curation is very useful.
This seems like a distinction without a difference. Curation is totally allowed, in Apple's own app store. They just can't prevent people from using their devices how they see fit to maintain that curation.
> I think the malaise is when you require every company to take the exact same approach.
I think you're arguing against yourself here. The way to allow companies to take different approaches is to require any app store/approach be allowed. Then Apple can curate, FOSS app stores like FDroid can use their approach, etc.
Fundamentally I think this issue is about ownership. Modern companies/products like to pretend that you don't own the things you buy, because it makes them money. Apple loves their 30% cut of apps, and hides behind "protecting the users" to maintain it, but they really want to control the your device. People would never ever tolerate not being in full control and maintaining true ownership of most things in their lives, but for some reason we let it slide with phones, which, like it or not, are one of the most important objects people own. They should be treated that way, and provided full ownership of them.
Sorry but allowing you to side load apps for a product like Apple makes it shittier. If helps companies that don't want to pay the Apple tax, but that's a bit funny considering that Apple essentially made this ecosystem and now they want to pretend it was just inevitable or always there.
I don't want to worry about giving my dad an iPhone and making sure he doesn't sideload some scammy app because that's essentially what you'll get. The same was the "third party sellers" on places like Amazon are pretty terrible.
I'm on an Android because I like the freedom. But again, Apple would not exist if you had this rule in place because it would immediately be en-shittified and no one would voluntarily pay the Apple tax that allows them to invest and invent this new ecosystem if they feel they can't control it.
If you don't want walled garden, don't use Apple. Plenty of people don't use Apple products. iOS is about 25% of European market, so what are we even talking about here?
Preventing every other iPhone owner on the planet from having full access to their own property because you don't want to do tech support for your dad is not an acceptable argument.
Preventing bad things at the cost of certain fundamental freedoms is not a desirable goal. Law enforcement is intentionally made harder by the 4th Amendment. It's literally there to obstruct the police, because it's more important for people to have privacy.
The same applies to your phone. A device you buy should be yours to use however you want, especially a device as important as a smartphone in the 21st century. No one expects to be able to run Linux on their toaster if it didn't already come with it, but preventing certain major functionality because ToasterCorp wants a walled garden is not acceptable. I see no difference with a phone.
Going forward, you could emphasize to Pops: "Never install anything not from the Apple App Store. Only use the Apple App Store." Problem solved. The rest of keep our freedom, Pop is safe.
I'd also like to see more walled gardens. Imagine an app store on iOS that only contained truly hand curated, exhaustively audited and continually monitored apps. I'd have no problem paying for access to this store or paying more for apps purchased via this store because it's adding something valuable to me.
Unfortunately we have the platform owners controlling (or essentially controlling) which stores are allowed to operate on those platforms right now. This needs to change.
I was away from my regular desktop dev PC for multiple months recently and only used a crappy laptop for dev work. I got used to it pretty quickly.
This makes me remember so many years ago starting to program on a dual core plastic MacBook.
Also, I’m very impressed by one of my coworkers working on 13 inch laptop only. Extremely smart. A bigger guy so I worry about his posture and RSI on such a small laptop.
TLDR I think more screen space does not scale near linearly with productivity
I was going to respond to this part of GP but along the lines of communication being (mostly?) not a crime in an of itself. Committing crimes in the physical world is still illegal.
I just want to make that clear, governments don’t need complete access to your digital life to make the legal system go round.
Unfortunately the argument of strong privacy for everyone loses compared to the emotional argument of “we could have prevented this horrific crime if we had access to XYZ”, in the emotional political arenas
A pessimistic/realistic view of post high school education - credentials are proof of able to do a certain amount of hard work, used as an easy filter for companies while hiring.
I expect universities to adapt quickly, lest lose their whole business as degrees will not carry the same meaning to employers.
I don’t see human interactions having a “net effect”. If someone is nice to me 99% of the time, and 1% screams obscenities at me, the 99% does not excuse the 1%.
Bad behavior is bad behavior full stop.
Try slapping someone and then follow it up with “but I wrote X software that benefits Y amount of people”
> If someone is nice to me 99% of the time, and 1% screams obscenities at me, the 99% does not excuse the 1%.
That's true! But neither does the 1% spoil the 99%, or make it unimportant. People are very bad at seeing the good and the bad in a person; they want to distill it down to one single data point of "he was good/bad". But that isn't remotely just, and it's worth pointing out whenever people skew too far towards glossing over flaws or refusing to acknowledge the good.
Right now, the zeitgeist is to refuse to acknowledge the good in someone if they did something the speaker considers bad enough. So, one has to frequently nudge people to not forget the good even as they acknowledge the bad.
But also: they are not weighted the same. Bad things are usually "more important" -- both practically, and for evolutionary reasons. So the bias -- and I agree the bias has gone too far in our current zeitgeist -- does have some foundation.
Everyone has some flaws, yet generally we remember the positive deeds that great people did in history. The positive deeds are usually exceptional, while the flaws are often commonly found in many humans (at least relative to the era when that person lived) that they're unremarkable. And we remember and celebrate the exceptional deeds instead of dwelling on the human flaws.
I'm talking about relationships you have with real people in your life. Avoiding large threats is evolutionarily more important than taking advantage of good opportunities. So if someone does something bad to you -- lies, steals, betrays, physically hurts -- that will generally make a bigger impact, and be remembered longer by you, than nice, helpful, or otherwise positive things they did.
I think you have in mind someone like Jobs, who was known for being an asshole but also for exceptional accomplishments, and in cases like that it is true that history will remember the accomplishments. But historical figures like Jobs are unbelievable statistical outliers. In your entire life you likely won't have substantial personal dealings with anyone of comparable historical legacy. And by the way, I'd guess that for most who had personal dealings with Jobs and were treated badly that the abuse will personally be a more salient memory than his success, even if they are able to acknowledge the greatness of his achievements.
I totally agree, but I thought we were basically talking about Jobs and other famous people?
I mean, there's no reason for somebody who hasn't had personal interaction with Jobs fixate on whether he was an asshole (which did not affect them) and ignore his accomplishments (which probably affected them to some degree)... but this seems to be the fashionable thing to do here.
I'm of two minds here. I agree there is something petty and unwholesome in the fixations of cancel culture, and by and large they don't spring from a virtuous place.
Otoh, it's more nuanced than just "did not affect them". Multiple things are happening here, and some have validity:
1. Such discussions are often serving (or people feel they are) as proxies for discussions about what the current rules should be. In that context, an insistence of calling Jobs or anyone else out serves as an insistence that such behavior not be allowed now. To me, it's silly that people can't separate these two things, but alas many can't.
2. There is a genuine issue of incentives. If people observe that success buys you a free pass for being a raging asshole, many of them will take note. Indeed, being able to get away with being an asshole can even become a special marker of success.
I don’t know about the FBI MLK files. But if I were to meet MLK or Ghandi or <insert widely recognized figure> and they were an asshole, I wouldn’t excuse or overlook their behavior.
The underlying ideas here are greatness and individuals ascribed to doing great things.
Without any evidence I suspect an extremely large majority of progress is done by normal individuals whose names we’ll never know.
Hard disagree, I think I here are great men and they drive history. Its nice to valorize the every day working man, and I'm likely such a person. I mean a lot to my family and maybe a handful of others but I won't shape history no matter how hard I try. I can only hope to make the world better by bringing up well adjusted children that contribute to society. And that's fine.
Do you really think Python’s consensus-driven language development is better than authoritarian?
I am honestly tired of the Python packing situation. I breathe a sigh of relief in language like Go and Rust with an “authoritative” built-in solution.
I wouldn’t mind the 30 different packaging solutions as long as there was authoritative “correct” solution. All the others would then be opt-in enhancements as needed.
I guess a good thought experiment would be if we were to design a packaging system (or decide not to) for a new PL like python, what would it look like?
> I breathe a sigh of relief in language like Go and Rust with an “authoritative” built-in solution.
I don't know about Go, but Rust's packaging isn't authoritative in the sense that I meant. There's no packaging BDFL; improvements to Rust packaging happen through a standards process that closely mirrors that of Python's PEPs.
I think the actual difference between Rust and Python is that Rust made the (IMO correct) decision early on to build a single tool for package management, whereas Python has historically had a single installer and left every other part of package management up to the user. That's a product of the fact that Python is more of a patchwork ecosystem and community than Rust is, plus the fact that it's a lot older and a lot bigger (in terms of breadth of user installation base).
Basically, hindsight is 20/20. Rust rightly benefited from Python's hard lesson about not having one tool, but they also rightly benefited from Python's good experience with consensus-driven standardization.
Was not setuptools the single tool for package management? It provided both the installer plus hooks to define packages and manage the install (plus eggs to try to manage the path). That doesn't mean the choices were the right ones (the package definition being the only thing to survive), but it seems that while cargo has the mindshare for pure-rust, when there's the need for integration with other ecosystems (as is the biggest challenge for Python), people need to switch to using meson or bazel and there appears to be some issues there.
Kind of, except that setuptools was never part of the standard library or standard distribution of Python. So it suffers/suffered from the same bootstrapping issue as the rest of Python packaging.
Does anyone know it? Was it in announcement video?
reply