Amending commits, while having the advantage of keeping the git tree pristine at every single point, is incredibly uncomfortable for async workflows such as the one suggested, where your review might take hours/days and you want to continue coding in a forked branch. Upstreaming any code review changes becomes a pain as git treats the two branches as completely distinct.
the iterm mode allows one to create, split, resize remote terminals as of they were native terminal windows, instead of all of them being contained within one terminal window and controlled using completely different keyboard-only shortcuts (via tmux)
Mainly the native feel. For example, you can use standard Cmd-based keybindings to control tabs and panes, and get smooth mouse scrolling in each pane.
That's exactly the purpose of this measure - to prevent consumers from fully owning their device. Presumably the carriers are selling you the device at some discount for longer term loyalty (through constraining the phone). This is not a security measure and government agencies being able to bypass it seems irrelevant.
You are confusing Verizon's motives with Google's motives. Verizon disabling the bootloader on phones that users are still paying off, or bought at a discount together with special terms of condition, is something that might be defensible.
Google however made it so that any Pixel phone bought anywhere, even by customers who pay 100% of the price themselves with no carrier involved are not actually owned by those users until they connect it to the internet and Google blesses the device.
I don't think I'm insane for not wanting my cellphone to get stolen and then be sold as a working phone to somebody else. Anything to cut down resale value of stolen phones. With full root you can overwrite the IMEI, and the stolen phone is as good as new.
"Defense in depth" applies to crime too. After-the-crime discovery and punishment can only do so much.
It's not that no enforcement happens, a quick search for "phone theft ring busted" returned an article [1] from March of this year. The search results suggest it's far from the only relatively recent bust.
Phones have exceptional monetary value compared to their size/weight. They're easy to steal, and anything that makes wiping the phone easier, faster, or cheaper will be exploited as it increases the value the thieves, fences, etc can extract.
The enforcement scheme needed to substantially reduce phone theft would likely be extremely expensive. It would also likely involve device and purchase tracking methods that many would consider draconic and ripe for abuse by governments and law enforcement.
What would you specifically recommend be done on the enforcement side of things, compared to what happens presently?
>>It's not that no enforcement happens, a quick search for "phone theft ring busted"
very limited enforcement happens, for every story you pull that shows enforcement, i can pull 10 that shows that even when a person can track their stolen phone to a building with "find my phone" many police dept refuse to do anything. This is a common thing.
I am willing to bet the phone theft ring that was busted was only busted as ancillary to a wider investigation in to terrorism, drugs, sex crime, or some other criminal activity and they were not targeting phone thefts at all
It would also be interesting to know if the charges are dropped, as they often are these days for these low level property crimes.
When you have people leaving their windows down, and trunks open to show there is nothing to steal or people can just brazingly walk in to a store and walk out of handfuls of merchandise because theft is soo rampant and prosecutors refuse to prosecute the crimes there is an enforcement issue.
>>The enforcement scheme needed to substantially reduce phone theft would likely be extremely expensive
I disagree, but please enlighten me as to what you think will be expensive
>>What would you specifically recommend be done on the enforcement side of things, compared to what happens presently?
Actually filling criminal charges for theft instead of just the Catch and release model we have today, so much so that police dept often do not even arrest or investigate the crimes at all because they know activist prosecutors will simply refuse to file charges for any theft under a certain dollar value.
I am not sure why this is even debated given that stores are moving out of several cities due to rampant theft that is going unenforced / unpunished. A quick search will show news report after news report of unlawful property theft being done sometimes even in full view of law enforcement who do nothing because they have been instructed not to in many major cities
My viewpoint is not that it is fair or not for the carrier doing so. But that restricting freedom from a users device and software should not be allowed. This means that if the carrier decides to sell devices via some kind of credit it cannot take away the freedoms of the user (and future owner) of the device, but the carrier can decide simply to not sell devices via some credit.
I'm not sure Google's alleged "honest" interface is only a product of company culture: The launch of Buzz was the target of as much criticism as received by Facebook.
It might just be that social network interfaces interact with users more intimately, and thus are more problematic to toy around with.
Either way, Facebook's chameleon interface is definitely irritating. You can see some of their design anti-patterns here: http://wiki.darkpatterns.org/wiki/Home
Google almost always rolls back anti-patterns once it's clear people aren't fond of them.
Facebook unveils roughly 8 anti-patterns with every re-do and rolls back the most egregious 4. The result is Facebook get significantly worse with every iteration.
Most of the recent ones though, I've solved with NoScript and only browsing Facebook in a dedicated browser. (I really need to make something a little more robust; effectively a Facebook app running on a Webkit core that opens all external links in Firefox. That would sandbox the social graph, and let me read links out of Facebook normally.)
> a Facebook app running on a Webkit core that opens all external links in Firefox.
This sounds really nice, but doesn't facebook also do the sa=D-style redirects like google? (I've no way to check.) If so, it effectively becomes a nice cross-browser way of tracking you.
I don't know what OS you're using, but I believe this is possible with Fluid, an SSB app generator for Mac OS X that uses Webkit. I quit FB a while ago, but use it for other sites in a similar fashion.
Microsoft has some amazing enterprise products. Excel is absolutely amazing. Access is a great development tool for paperwork personnel. SQL Server is so so simple to get up and running, and scale up to tremendous volume.
Of course, it makes sense if you interpret it right -- but it looks at first glance like it's comparing absolute sales figures, rather than change from baseline for each.
