HunterWare

Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%). Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men.

I think, however, this is a different discussion. The article was about the value of domain experts and trust in them, and I feel it's sad this is somehow contentious (although thankfully less so on this forum). I believe another article could be written about the need to improve access to relevant domain experts (your premise I believe) and the need to increase accountability of experts/professionals (another person's premise). Both are worthy areas to examine once we acknowledge the importance of domain experts and offloading/delegating to them...

But on that note: whatever the ratio of good:bad is in any field it is always still important to improve it. I hope noone would disagree that all your examples of bad behavior are, in fact, bad... and society should work to improve on them through culling the bad actors and enforcing standards of behavior and expertise.

I might note thought that this article was about expertise which is a different issue than "do you trust general law enforcement". Again I think we are at risk of mixing two separate but important issues. At the risk of further blurring the lines though, in this separate case I still suspect the answer is to specifically address the underlying problem of untrustworthy law enforcement when that problem is identified, rather than accepting a world were we have to take that responsibility on ourselves at all times. ie I suspect the policy of better controls and accountability on the people we trust is better than a policy of not trusting.

On the expert in all fields: actually I just disagree here. I get your point but I think my summary is right. Let's again take the doctor sub-argument. If I decide that because my nephew's college roommate's friend had a doctor who was a bad apple (bad call? Oxy abuser? whatever) that I won't trust doctors anymore then the result will be that I become the medical expert in my life. As I am no longer delegating that competency and expertise to doctors, I have now assumed that role. Then add to that my assuming all the other roles that the top post used as examples and I'm now (in my world) the export (for me) on all those subjects.

I don't know about you, but I have a life and just don't have the time to be an expert on geopolitics, all fields the press is covering, all house repairs, my car, science, my health, and everything else mentioned... (1) For my part? Thank god for qualified experts.

1 - from top post: "Politicians, journalists, contractors, car mechanics, scientists, all experts and all professionals with with trust issues."

You can find 999 doctors who help and 1 bad apple who prescribes Oxy willy-nilly. That doesn't mean you trust them all equally, that means that trusting doctors works out pretty well 99.9% of the time, which are good odds and WAY better odds then every idiot out there trying to figure out medicine on their own and/or listening to random talking heads (which has a WAY lower hit rate).

Once you just focus on general policies that lead to better outcomes, and everyone stops thinking they are so exceptional that they can become an expert in all fields, then recognizing true expertise and following its advice becomes an obviously more generally optimal path.

People will answer this post saying “that’s not true, you can totally have the iOS experience with side-loading/whatever”. Those people also likely believe that the “right communism” just hasn’t been tried yet. If one could actually do this then likely someone would have tried it and succeeded already. Another way to realize that is to understand you are just describing Android, and a perfectly valid existing choice (actually, several choices in a family). Additionally, those people are ignoring the fact that the security/convenience/consistency trade-offs made in any ecosystem do have consequences (positive and negative from varying perspectives).

Which leads us back to the parent: If one wants a different trade-off (which is totally valid and I have happily owned and developed for both systems in the past) then pick a different ecosystem and buy into it. MY personal pie in the sky wish is that people would quit pissing on other people who don’t want to be forced to make THEIR choice. Please take your choices and stop advocating to take MINE away.

The homage seems lovely, but doesn't (unfortunately) change the fact that to the vast majority of english speakers "rocky" means unstable/dangerous... In fact, one of the most common expressions referring to an unstable/bad relationship is "their relationship is on the rocks" or "they are on the rocks".

From a black box, zero-knowledge, perspective it’s maybe worth remembering that code built this way successfully runs mission critical systems all over the world every day. Thoughtful people would have switched to other (slower, more pedantic) systems if doing things differently was a real overall life improvement. People have had the choice, there are plenty of OS’s out there... some far more formal/pedantic. Linux wasn’t the safe choice back in the day, it was just better by several important metrics consistently over time.

Perhaps these insanely experienced kernel devs know what they are doing.

If you want a phone for just getting the normal stuff done in a curated world, then pick iOS as that’s what they are trying to do. If you want a phone/device that is wide open to play with, extend, and hack on in a basically open manner, then pick Android as that’s what they are trying to do.

What seems like a waste of time is to pick one side and then complain about it not being enough like the other side. Pick your flavor, the world offers both. And then quit whining if the other side is more successful by some metric... Make your chosen side better or switch.

With this in mind: It’s arguably also intellectually dishonest to pretend that we all woke up today in some kind of “iOS only world” and should now regulate it. a) It’s not, and b) you would be killing the very thing that made everyone want this ecosystem in the first place.

If all the “regulate them!” and “open the store!” people win, then history says most will eventually move on to a new ecosystem that works like the old one (which people evidently like). Android has been open the whole time and the money gravitates away from it... If highly regulated and fully open phones worked so well then iOS would be a footnote in history books, and not the powerhouse that you want to squash.

There are a lot of ways to address this, people just have to do it or face the inevitable consequences of not doing it.

It’s a really good engr/sci calc for iOS/MacOS. Unless I’m going for a specific need (Gotta have this exact HP compatibility, need funky plotting, etc) this is what I reach for first.

“How does the Transit Tech Lab work?

Applicants participate in a rigorous selection process that may include in-person presentations. At the conclusion of the application process, the MTA will select companies to participate in an 8-week accelerator to learn about the MTA and modify their technology to meet the transit system's needs. Following the accelerator, the MTA will select the most promising companies to deploy a 12-month, unpaid pilot with the transit system. The Transit Tech Lab offers companies an opportunity to demonstrate their technology in the nation’s largest transit systems and receive mentorship.

Do companies receive compensation for participating in the Transit Tech Lab?

There is no compensation for participation in the Transit Tech Lab, and pilots are unpaid. Companies may apply for limited grant funding from NYSERDA.“

This is not an “incubator evaluation” to anyone but the author of the comment. It’s a technology evaluation for MT(S)A that is designed to not waste their time through a selection process of applicants with a defined path of application and trail.

If you have the choice to buy phones which use one of several app stores, then you have choice in app stores. You also can’t install a Corvette engine in a Toyota Corolla but I don’t see everyone screaming about that. If you want a Corvette engine I do know the car you can chose in order to get it.

And yes, two non-colluding choices is choice. People aren’t suggesting that Apple and Google are all buddy buddy so there is choice. I suggest we all make one we are happy with and move on. =)

Apple always had this model. From the start... So people who bought into the ecosystem did it fully able to understand the system. This isn’t some creepy unexpected recent change... if someone doesn’t like this system then they should (past/present/future) put on their person pants and buy a different phone. I use Linux and Mac specifically because I didn’t like the way Microsoft was doing things. I didn’t start a movement to somehow legislate handcuffs to force Microsoft to address my whims, I just voted with my time, attention, and wallet.

And yes, do think others are free to chose too and should own their choices. If Apple stops providing me the best avenue to the things I want then I will switch. But right now I want ease of use, and the most confidence that things will just work and work well. I want this in the hardware, the OS, and the apps... and I think Apple provides that best. If my needs change, or their ability to meet those needs changes, then I will move to the place that does it best then...

Regarding the “don’t HAVE to use it” argument... I humbly suggest it’s irrelevant. They don’t have a monopoly so we don’t have a public overriding interest in messing with them. I’m saying that I don’t give a hoot about them having a side store: I want to quickly and confidently find the best apps to fill the needs I have. I will pay for the ability to do it as time has value. After that need is met, not much else has value and so I’m (personally) happy in the store. I’ll also suggest that Apple’s success says that a healthy number of people agree. This leads me to think that all the people who want to better sell crap to me that I don’t want are showing a bit of a case of “sour grapes”.

1) One certainly can do this cheaper. But I’m going to hazard a guess (sight unseen) that bandcamp doesn’t provide as much for that 15%. The original point wasn’t “can you do it cheaper”, it was “do you get a desirable amount of value for the 30%”. I’m a consultant, and there are cheaper options than me. I feel I provide good value for the money, and I guess the fact that I have customers says the market agrees, but that doesn’t mean that some less expensive competitor isn’t a perfectly fine option. It means that the market says I am worth X so I can charge X... Nothing more.

2) The $99 argument is interesting. From my persepective: Enterprise tools cost a lot and 99$ yearly is insanely reasonable. I’d guess that it basically just covers the cost to them of supporting the devs and maintaining the interface to the dev side of security infrastructure. What I can say with some confidence is that it can’t cover even a fraction of the cost of creating and maintaining Xcode. I think the $99 is a way to recover some cost, and create a barrier to entry that makes sure that people who join are at least a tiny bit somewhat serious.

(oh, and I love your username... awesomeness)

You as a dev just create a simple parked webpage for your app and you are done. So many barriers to entry are just dissolved. At no upfront cost to the developer. That’s huge.

I think the many many business that prefer to be on this environment, and always have, speaks to the value of that 30%.

Maybe 30% is a little high, it’s really hard and subjective to say. But it’s not crazy... there is a lot of value provided for that 30%.