I'm sure there will be some great brands coming but when they are ready they will spend money and really develop brands. While they are selling literally no-name or no-history brand names that are churned rapidly there is almost no cost in getting a bad reputation, just start a new brand.
This doesn't mean that brands never fail or do wrong (cough VW) but the fact that they have something to lose is a good thing. Also you are more likely to hear if there are huge problems with a product.
> Actually where the country controls its currency the effects are totally different and if the ECB could certainly step in for tiny Greece if there was a will.
It's the same thing. If you don't have enough money in the bank to make creditors whole, you print more (thus devaluing what everybody has). If you can't print, you cut their deposits. Either way, creditors are robbed. There is no magical solution here. Mathematics cannot be amended at will of any government.
If you spend more than you earn, someone somewhere someday is paying for it. And the longer you conceal that truth, the harder it is going to hit.
If the creditor is a bank, they're also creating money when they loan it out. Who is being robbed again?
In theory, it's either the shareholders, boldholders, or the broader citizenry that carry the risk in the banking system. So far Europe's governments have hung the risk on its citizens because either the banking system is too fragile to handle large defaults, or they want to preserve their bond holder and shareholder friends. probably a mix of both since they convinced €140b worth of bondholders to take a 50% haircut on Greece back in 2012. the hedge funds really were the main case of anyone getting "robbed" but that's what we call "credit risk".
The ECB can't handle Greece on its own because it has much stricter rules than a sovereign central bank would. It's bad financial architecture.
Per your last statement, there are MANY U.S. States, especially in the south, that have spent more than they earn at times during the financial crisis. I don't mean government spending, I mean taxes vs. transfers - wherein the Federal government is keeping the people in that state afloat. You don't read about those as much in the papers because we have a fiscal union and automatic stabilizers designed to help our neighbours out when they have problems. Europe lacks this.
Economics is not a morality play of evil debtors and angelic creditors or vice versa. Creditors can and should be wiped out when they make stupid loans. Debtors can and should be held to account but given forgiveness when they screw up (with limits on their ability and size of future screw ups). Failures to do either lead to systemic failures and/or revolutions. This has happened throughout history and will continue to happen regardless of your political system - monarchy, democracy, oligarchy, and anarchy.
There is one difference. When you have a government, it indebts people, who do not necessarily agree or understand the terms and the consequences. You cannot reasonably argue that because 50% voted for that government, 100% should face the consequences.
Actually, I can reasonably argue that. We get the government the majority wants (subject to filtering by the property holding oligarchy). I would much rather have that than a libertarian dystopia, which would be pure oligarchy in practice.
No reforms in the world will allow Greece to meet the current liabilities, even the IMF says so. The bigger the surplus the Government runs (to pay back the creditors) the more the economy will shrink and the further more they will miss their target by.
Germany isn't paying for Greece, it (well the troika but Germany is significantly calling the shots) is effectively governing Greece by a series of manufactured crises every 6 months in which they can impose conditions (detailed policy requirements on internal issues including pensions and taxes) for the next payment (which is 90% transferred to creditors rather than going to Greece itself).
Whether fascism is the right word or not there is something profoundly undemocratic about the situation and there are several valid comparisons with fascism. Singling out a groups as scapegoats for all blame and the aspect of collective punishment. Sensible people trying to maximise the return on their loans would restructure them to take some loss but to enable Greece to recover to be able to pay the bulk of them. Instead the focus seems to be punishment for irresponsible lending.
Singling out a groups as scapegoats for all blame and the aspect of collective punishment
In line with many on the right, you are singling out Germany as a group as a scapegoat! Indeed Syriza's approach to the negotiations was to run a divide-and-conquer on the EU, trying to pit the rest of the EU against Germany. This backfired badly.
Germany isn't paying for Greece
In what sense? Greece owes Germany €88.7 Billion.
Sensible people trying to maximise the return on their loans would restructure them to take some loss but to enable Greece to recover to be able to pay the bulk of them.
Which is of course exactly what the troika is trying to do (however imperfectly), and much debt has already been written off or rolled over, but the Syriza government is blocking this as much as possible.
there is something profoundly undemocratic
Greece is perfectly free democratically to decide to ignore the troika, and default on all debt. Greece is also free to other other countries to pay for its debt, e.g. Japan, the US, Venezuela. But Greece has no unconditional right to other people's money. Why should Latvia and Lithuania, who are much poorer than Greece, finance a ridiculously bloated Greek military? There are much poorer countries still, Cambodia, Malawi, Niger, Angola. Why is it so vital that the rest of the world blows billions on fairly wealthy Greece, rather than these much more needy countries?
At the time Windows had more than 95% (pulling percentage out of thin air but I think it is realistic) of the desktop operating system market. Apple is less than half of the mobile market. This doesn't mean I agree with the limitations but it is certainly legally relevant to whether they are "get away" with doing it.
Apple is not an open company (by a long stretch) but they do make serious contributions to open software in many areas. Webkit, LLVM and related tools are particularly notable. In the case of other software they make fairly perfunctory source dumps.
The link between LLVM, Chris Lattner and Swift is especially promising for how Swift will be opened up so I'm optimistic that it will be done seriously and properly. And I have previously predicted that it would be opened up at some point so the announcement this week was not surprising although it was still very good news.
I am an iOS developer and I really like Swift. One of the direct benefits of it being opened in this way will be the opportunity to use it on Linux so that it can be easily deployed as server side code. Actually getting to see how it works, potentially tinker (although I don't expect to do much) potentially use it in education contexts where the requirement for a Mac is a blocker are secondary benefits personally although maybe bigger issues for others.
You don't have to focus on the in Swift part with what the new protocol extensions. The first section is a good general discussion of the downsides of Object Oriented Programming (Class oriented really) and a simple illustration of an alternative approach. Watch the end too where it covers when OOP is appropriate.
The new Swift Protocol extensions are cool but aren't really the right place to start looking at Swift.
I was in the room and this was my favorite session so far. I encourage people to watch it even if you don’t strictly care about Swift, the concept exposed is interesting and useful, and the syntax introduced shouldn’t be a problem to understand.
I don't like ads but I don't block them. What I really hate and like to minimise is cross site tracking/profiling so I use NoScript and don't allow common analytics and ad serving scripts to run. I'm really looking forward to having options to do this sort of thing on iOS.
NoScript does stop many ads but that is a side affect from my point of view.
If you put a dynamically dispatched function call in the middle of a tight loop you will slow it down significantly. As I say in the talk in most code it just doesn't matter. It is all relative. A function call is fast relative to a context switch or and I/O operation.
If you think what is required to call an instance method on the class it is significant. Roughly, read the address of the object, read the pointer to the class, read the vtable of the class for the function pointer then set registers and stack values and make the function call.
In ObjC method calls are actually via objcmsg_send calls to do the dynamic dispatch.
Computers are fast and they do these things quickly but not having to do them is much faster.