It would be terrifying for any bank to give people 30 thirty year loans at historically low interest rates (because of the interest rate risk - rates have nowhere to go but up, and the bank could easily be upside down for most of the loan), so the U.S. government subsidizes/backs most mortgages (fannie and freddie). This tends to increase the cost of housing while taxpayers are taking on the interest rate risk instead of the banks.
The U.S. is an anomaly with these loans. Most countries don't do this 30 year fixed low rate mortgages like the U.S. It simply doesn't make sense for lenders to underwrite long loans at low rates.
Agreed, but technically, the loan is written at time of interest, and for that period it can provide a certain kind of stability in housing prices as well.
As 2008 taught us, other ways can come up to try and make money.
"The EU Digital Markets Act mandates that messaging services like iMessage are required to offer other companies some level of interoperability if they’re deemed to be big and important enough." [1]
The law has already passed and will apply to messaging services with more than 10% of the market. WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger will need to comply. After review it was determined that iMessage doesn't have enough users in Europe at this time.
A lot of money is spend on end-of-life care, trying to keep someone alive on their deathbed for an extra month or two, and people don't seem to want to talk about the diminishing returns of some of that care, and the opportunity costs - the other people that could have been helped more with those resources.
It's a thing, even if ignored. We're paying big premiums for that to insurance companies as part of our wages and taxes.
I wonder if other countries do significantly better?
Forget the costs, there's unnecessary suffering inflicted on patients with some forms end-of-life care. Overwhelmingly doctors - who have witnessed such care - firsthand, sign DNRs to avoid going through that[1].
But your taxes are too low. For example the Netherlands does have a good system. But a 50k car costs 120k in the Netherlands. From your 80k salary 35k goes to the state as taxes. On most products you buy 21% is tax. If someone dies his money is 50% tax. Give 100k as a present. 30k is tax. And so on.
I've got the Netherlands spending 10.02% of their GDP on health care in 2018 [0], and the U.S. spending 16.68 in that same year [1]. If it were just a matter of money wouldn't that mean that the U.S. is already doing more?
Or is something else making a difference?
How does the Netherlands handle end-of-life care? I see in 2013 that 3.4% of all deaths in the Netherlands were people who chose euthenasia [2]. Maybe that saves their system a lot of money? Maybe they look at end-of-life differently?
In the Netherlands how do they make decisions about who gets possible life saving treatments versus who does not? does anybody who wants state of the art chemo get it, even if they are 80+ years old?
> USA has top tier health care. It's simply not economical to give it to everyone who demands it
I've always thought that this is something basic that we need to address as part of any health care reform.
We can't afford to give everyone unlimited health care, so how do we determine the limits?
I assume that a lot of socialized health care systems end up using waiting lists, perhaps based on the patient's age, treatment cost, and probability of a positive outcome, with the option of going outside the system and paying for more/quicker care, for those who can afford it.
One person I discussed this with assumed that there was plenty of money to give everyone care as good as billionaires get. I don't assume that's true. Has it worked out that way anywhere else?
I think for-profit healthcare can do a lot of unnecessary tests and treatments that fall far into diminishing returns or worse.
It’s not necessarily a good thing to want unlimited healthcare for all. Proper use of a scarce resource doesn’t necessarily mean it’s about rationing it with waiting lists and selective treatment. You can probably get quite far by first not overtreating a lot of people.
Why do we assume that healthcare is a scarce resource? Sure, maybe some diagnostic/treatment equipment is not available everywhere, but the labor/cost issue seems to be created by regulatory capture, i.e. self-imposed barriers to entry. I agree that it is not in the best interest of the apex providers to change that. Telemedicine could be hugely disruptive if allowed to be practiced cross border between states. So would open collaboration of doctors between countries, e.g. I heard that some pathology operations are already utilizing labor in other countries, but having a domestic pathologist review the findings and signing off.
So you see iMessage as the only available option for people to use in order to obtain open messaging? Worth violating society's understanding of ownership and property (you may think corporations aren't people, but people do own corporations, and those people have property rights).
And how far does "most people want <X>" go? If "most people want" to prevent people from being married, is that justifiable?
People are not granted limited liability like corporations are. The original intention was not that corporations are given permission to pursue profits without regard to any other factors.
What would be so wrong with the people mandating a next generation messaging standard and requiring all cell phone manufacturers add support for the new standard? Kind of like Europe did with charging cables. Would that make the world a better or a worse place?
I never said anything about making iMessage the only available option. Apple users could keep iMessage, too. Worst case their users have more options.
I agree that it is an interesting question on how far the will of the people goes, i.e. democracy vs mob rule. But I wouldn't put corporate profits on a pedestal over all other considerations.
We're not discussing "the people mandating a next-generation messaging standard." We're discussing the suggestion that the US government nationalize iMessage.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "corporations as people" or "corporate greed." iMessage is not critical to living life in the United States or globally, so the notion that a government ought to take it from Apple anyway seems to be completely unjustified.
But I never said anything about nationalizing iMessage. Maybe someone else said that, or there's some other misunderstanding?
I mentioned that mandated support on phones for a new and better messaging standard seems like a reasonable idea. There's even precedent for such things - the European Universal Charger Mandate.
How is that taking iMessage from Apple? They can still run their own separate messenger, like they do now. Are you worried about them loosing the advantage they have by using their market size to keep users on their proprietary messaging system and not wanting more competition? Is that kind of like how they used to make extra money selling proprietary charging cables?
I think you’re forgetting who you responded to. My question was how nationalizing iMessage is a justified position, because that’s what the person I replied to said. That’s the topic, that’s what I was discussing.
Ah, I see where someone mentioned "obliged to make their products/services interoperable".
By "nationalize" I assume you were thinking of things like mandates that Apple servers be required to support third-party iMessage clients, or that the government takes over Apple's iMessage servers. I don't like these ideas, either.
But I think there are a lot of other possibilities, and precedents. The U.S. regulates and imposes on carriers to handle wiretaps and spam, Europe mandates that phone manufacturers use interoperable power adapters, baseband chips in phones are heavily regulated, etc. Other industries like banking and mining and construction are steeped in regulation. Justified as being for the public good.
Perhaps a better interoperable messaging standard could be implemented as a mandated replacement for sms and mms. The goal is better baseline messaging for all users. Companies can still do their own thing besides that, like they do now.
> At a certain level of adoption, they should be forced to, IMO. Our monopoly laws never envisioned self contained platforms/marketplaces
with this comment:
> What justification is there for this, though? There is nothing specifically unique to iMessage that makes life, liberty, or property difficult to pursue.
You then said:
> Devil's advocate...
> Historically the reason corporations were given limited liability was in return for them performing a public good.
> If in a democracy most people want open messaging, I see no reason why they shouldn't have it.
> Corporations are not the same as people, they are tools.
When one says "[To play] Devil's advocate", one is taking on the position opposite of the person they're speaking with. My position is, "What is the justification for forcing Apple to open iMessage?" That means you're taking the position of, "There is justification for forcing Apple to open iMessage." You then do this by saying your third line, that if a democracy has a majority of people wanting something, you see no reason why they shouldn't have it.
Intentional or not, you took on the position that iMessage should be taken from Apple by the US government and forcibly open-sourced because that's the will of the people. When I responded, I was responding to the comments you had made in this direction, which you continued to make.
What I think is that iMessage is owned by Apple, and since it doesn't provide any critical and otherwise unobtainable service, it should not be nationalized. That was what we were discussing. I didn't opt to participate in an open-ended discussion that bounces around on the general topic of open sourced messaging platforms, I responded to a specific argument with a specific counterpoint.
In hindsight I assume that you were thinking of the government taking iMessage from Apple? I didn't see anyone mention that specifically, and I never assumed that would be how the government would approach this.
Everybody knows that social democracies have plenty of legal justification and precedent for doing such things. They impose on industry all the time, in many different sectors. They have done such things as mandate interoperability, and they could do so in order to allow for more capable messaging for everyone, perhaps updates to existing sms/mms like I mentioned, without targeting one company specifically. When enough voters care about an issue our representatives respond within regulatory and constitutional limits. Whether you agree or not, that's how the world we live in works. We don't live in an Ayn Rand novel.
My initial reply spoke to the moral justification underpinning the legal justification for such things, i.e. the public good.
> Intentional or not, you took on the position...
I tried to correct your erroneous assumptions about my position in our thread, and ask questions to learn more about yours. That has not gone well. One might wonder if you are deflecting for some reason.
> I didn't opt to participate in an open-ended discussion that bounces around on the general topic of open sourced messaging platforms, I responded to a specific argument with a specific counterpoint.
Sometimes back and forth is required to avoid misunderstandings, to better explore a nuanced topic, and to narrow things down instead of talking in circles. Fine by me if you'd rather not.
None of this is relevant to what you originally said or what I asked, and at this point I think you know that.
But why try so hard to steer this wildly far from the original topic? Initially I presumed malice, but at this point I'm guessing you don't get to have these kinds of conversations a lot and are just vomiting anything that comes to your mind.
If you want to continue the discussion, directly answer the following question:
What justification is there for using governmental authority to force Apple to make iMessage interoperable with any/every other chat service?
You wanted to play the Devil's advocate, right? So do it. Or don't, but the above was the topic.
The topic was not, "People ought to be allowed to make a separate messaging protocol if they want to." Of course that's obviously fine, by the way, nobody suggested it wasn't, and in fact that's exactly what RCS is purporting to be. Or pick any of a dozen other protocols, the concept is the least controversial possible position on the topic to take. Why are you so intent on talking about what is the single most unoriginal and boring aspect of this entire debate (because everybody agrees with what you're saying)?
> What justification is there for using governmental authority to force Apple to make iMessage interoperable with any/every other chat service?
Justifications, in order of specificity:
1) Political philosophy: "government action is occasionally the only feasible or cost-effective way of bringing about an outcome which each person sees as beneficial - or would see as beneficial under idealized epistemic conditions - but which they lack the power to bring about unilaterally" [1]
2) Better user experience: "When a sector is extremely concentrated, the people who are willing to trade the public good and foundational democratic values for incremental increases in their employer’s profitability get a hearing within the company and take over the company’s decision making. When a business doesn’t have to worry about losing its customers due to abusing them ... eventually becomes a serious hazard to human rights." [2]
3) U.S. Supreme Court ruling: "The U.S. Supreme Court - just like the EU - recognized that interoperability was a critical user benefit that assured innovation and lowered cost" [3]
4) Legal precedent: The 1996 Telecommunications Act "sets obligations for incumbent carriers and new entrants to interconnect their networks" [4]
5) Proposed new law: "The U.S. ACCESS Act of 2021 mandates data portability from big tech companies." [5] This specific law didn't address messaging, but does address other services. Quite a few other anti-trust reforms have been implemented and are being discussed.
6) Department of Justice investigation: The DOJ is currently looking into "whether Apple is doing something it shouldn't be - blocking access to iMessage for reasons other than privacy and security." [6]
7) Current law: "The EU Digital Markets Act mandates that messaging services like iMessage are required to offer other companies some level of interoperability if they’re deemed to be big and important enough." [7] This law in Europe does exactly what you asked about, with WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, forcing them to allow access from other clients. I don't know that anybody considers these as nationalized. Apple's iMessage is being reviewed, at this time it might not be big and important enough in Europe to be covered.
Shared values, legal precendent, new laws and the courts are how we collectively make decisions in constitutional representative social democracies. In practicality no further justification is required. If enough people want interoperability they'll eventually get it, like what already is happening in Europe, and is being talked about in the U.S. This is how our governments are designed to operate. Politics ends up reflecting the culture, and we don't live in an anarcho-capitalist society. That's not what most people want.
Do you have a position different than the above that you can speak to? Perhaps something that might persuade others to consider an alternate point of view?
Exploring this topic in more detail I'm glad to learn that the system appears to be in headed in the direction I'd hoped for. I'm content.
I'm happy to let you have the last word if this all seems like more vomit to you, maybe another pedantic zinger for old times sake ;-)
No need for a zinger, every single one of your examples presumes falsely that iMessage provides a unique service that isn’t available elsewhere, a fact you yourself have already admitted isn’t true. Further, you seem to believe iMessage itself is of some critical value to society such that the absence of its availability to others is of sufficient pain so as to justify the violation of the concept of ownership, but you do this without justification.
What it seems to boil down to is entitlement. You feel entitled to this product because it’s common. That’s a wild violation of the social contract and demonstrates a thoroughly unconsidered approach to how society handles the reward of novel ideas and if normalized would utterly kill innovation and ruin the very things you seem to care about.
So you’re faced with a choice; let Apple continue to control iMessage, or give up on the idea of rewarding innovation. You don’t get both, despite your apparent belief that you are entitled to the works of others.
Funny that back in the day Apple reverse-engineered MS office formats to make Mac software that could open Microsoft documents [1]. Sounds like you and them want to prevent anyone from doing what they did when they were a smaller growing company. Kind of ironic, huh?
> your examples presumes falsely that iMessage provides a unique service
You know that anti-trust laws apply to all kinds of anti-competitve situations and not just monopolies on a unique good, right? Things like building walled gardens and buying up the competition can fall into this category.
> violation of the concept of ownership
There's nothing sacred about current ideas of ownership. They changes over time. It used to be that peasants and women and children were property and kings owned all the land. Intellectual property rights have changed. We compromise ownership rights with things like imminent domain, property taxes, zoning and libraries. Why do you assume that a messaging protocol should be owned the same way as other property?
> but you do this without justification
The root of this issue is that people are unsettled with the direction big tech has taken, concentrated in so few companies, they way they embrace and extend, weaponize the legal system, lobby politicians, profit off people's privacy, attention and well being, etc. Governments are taking action because this is what people want. That's how the world works.
Do you assume that people are supposed to adhere to your principals when they are unhappy with what big tech is doing? This is all new, why would you assume that the rules shouldn't be adjusted for new situations?
> You feel entitled to this product because it’s common
This isn't just me and this isn't just this product. It's much bigger than that. People are unhappy with the direction big tech is going. In general they are exploiting old rules with new technology. You're not providing any answers here.
> violation of the social contract
The social contract is not guaranteed to stay the same for you or anyone else. It evolves when there are significant changes. Things like the bubonic plague, the printing press, the new world, the industrial revolution, large scale farming and container ships and other things all drove significant societal changes, some good and some not so good. The amount and pace of change due to the internet and mobile computing is unprecedented. Stuff like this prompts changes to the social contract, in an attempt to fix problems. The social contract is always changing, every generation there are tweaks.
The people who wanted to keep slavery legal said the same thing you're saying - it's not fair to violate the social contract. Well sometimes that's the right thing to do.
> if normalized would utterly kill innovation
Wouldn't open protocols tend to encourage innovation, like what happened with the internet and open source software? Instead of these companies milking profits for years because of network effects and their ability to lock out the competition wouldn't it be better if switching costs were lowered? Wouldn't that create a lot of possibilities for alternatives, and lower prices, and a better balance between these big companies and the rest of society? That's what people want.
Innovation is not Apple reverse-engineering MS Office formats then later using the legal system to stop others from doing the same thing.
What is it that you are afraid of? Do you think these big companies can't compete if they had to open some of their protocols? Do you ever worry that a few big tech companies have carved up the world and will stifle anything or anyone that gets in the way of their profits?
So in other words, you want to benefit from your own ownership, but strip good ideas from others because you want them? Hypocritical, shortsighted, and even more selfish than I initially thought.
…or you would be if you actually believed any of this. Of course you don’t in any meaningful sense, otherwise you would live substantially differently, to the point that even using HN would be impossible. So it’s just hateful, selfish rhetoric then. It costs nothing to you to write these completely unsubstantiated ideas on the Internet, but it would cost you everything you enjoy to actually implement.
It’s abundantly clear you’ve never considered any of this before, and have zero conception of the consequences of what you’re suggesting. HN wouldn’t exist, your job wouldn’t exist, nor would whatever you do for fun, the main ways food is delivered to your grocery stores, clean water into your home… nothing you value would operate if we eschewed basic ownership concepts such as what your suggestions here would require.
You claim to want to return us to the stone age, so forgive me if I in no way believe you.
I presented all that detail - philosophical justifications, legal precedents, court rulings, new laws, how the social contract and concepts of ownership have changed historically to address conflicts between new technology and old rules, how open standards foster innovation as opposed to letting companies manipulate the legal system to maintain profits, and how even Apple themselves did such things in the past.
But you know, without even addressing any of that, you have changed my mind! You just kept repeating the same things about ownership and entitlement, and that making changes was all my crazy idea. You even pointed out a couple times that I was thinking thoughts I didn't know I had.
I had no idea that hacker news would cease to exist if we mandated open protocols for big tech messaging. I don't see how that's related, but it must be, you said so. I'm surprised hacker news made it as far they did with all the open protocols that already exist. We'd be so much better off if CERN never opened the http protocol. Just like how mandating telephone network interoperability decades ago will destroy that industry. Any day now I'm sure.
All of those people and their concerns about big tech, and all of those countries passing new laws about big tech, I just saw one about Japan cracking down on app store monopolies, they must all be wrong. Because those companies own that stuff, like you said. Those who want choice are wrong. All of those people and governments must be hateful and selfish like me. We should let those big companies do what they want. These companies got big first and that entitles them to continue to control how most of us communicate, censuring us with their algorithms, etc. No big deal, it's not like communication is important to people. Too bad for those other companies that weren't in the right place at the right time, they don't have a moat or a enough lawyers and lobbyists to protect themselves. The printing press showed us how inconsequential communication revolutions are, just the whole reformation and enlightenment happening afterwards, no big deal. And what's with these new copyright laws at the time? If you own a book you should be able to copy it! Rules are rules and can't be changed. If we make any changes to mandate open protocols we'll utterly kill innovation, just like you said. The success of the everything built on the open internet and OSS proves that. It'll be another stone age if we keep that up, like you said.
Why didn't I see this before? Maybe I think too much, that must be my problem. Who needs logic or historical context to understand this stuff when emotional words like kill and hate and destroy carry much more weight and make so much more sense. So insightful. The current order is paramount, no matter how the world changes. I never knew how reassuring it was to be a reactionary and just dig in and ignore everything to the contrary, sure that I'm always right. I like this feeling of not having to challenge my preconceived notions, or explain myself. It's comfortable.
Over and over again you play this game of “hide the ball” where you respond as if you’re advocating for the subsumption of Apple’s iMessage product, then flip over to responding as if you merely are here to advocate for an open messaging protocol. My responses have always addressed the former, and ignore the latter, as the latter is an uninteresting and wholly obvious concept.
Should people be able to agree on a shared and open protocol for communication? Yes. Should the US government nationalize iMessage? No.
But a book like that is something that you sink into, the author draws you into their fictional world, over a period of hours.
That's quite different that 45 seconds of outrage the on to the next click-bait, isn't it?
The attention span required seems quite different between the two. I assume that's why people are concerned that things like social networks may be detrimental to focused thinking.
EDIT: I agree that a book like "It", full of suspense, would not ordinarily be considered relaxing to read.
This to me seems like good practice, it's better to use a 'real' programming language when you're crossing the boundary from 'script' to 'program'
Shellscript has way too many idiosyncracies and weirdnesses that would have been beaten out of a proper programming language by now. (I know that talking about weirdnesses is amusing in relation to perl which also has a whole armload of them.)
No, power shells problem is that it cannot decide whether it's a programming language or a shell REPL, and ends up doing both badly. The syntax is too cryptic (and far too verbose) for a REPL, and too "shell-y" for a PL.
bash, for all its many many many flaws, is quite clearly a REPL first, PL second.
Predictions have been made, and we can check if they were correct, but maybe not at the moment.
Some past short-term predictions, like predictions for 2020 made in 1990, may or may not be correct. We can look those up. Many other predictions are for what will happen in the coming decades, and we won't be able to assess with certainty whether they were correct until those future dates.
I wonder if that is all that human intelligence is, just pattern matching? With biological quirks and urges thrown into the mix.