antris

Yes, there is a global supply chain fragility when it comes to a few companies controlling the supply of microchips. Nobody is suggesting that Apple somehow can do everything from scratch. Even if they had factories making the chips themselves, what if their raw material suppliers collapsed? What if a critical delivery route gets compromised, as happened with Ever Given? What if a war breaks out? What if, what if, what if... You can entertain any number of ideas. Everyone knows that the global supply chains have dependencies, and if something bad happens in the world, the economy and supply chains of the world suffer. This has nothing to do with Apple specifically.

How about let's not? There are infinite possibilities you can imagine of things going wrong. Pulling one example out of an infinite list does nothing to address the argument itself, it's just fictional role play. And every time one plays a scenario out, they could always just go one more step towards a more catastrophic scenario, until we'd arrive at "A-ha, but as we see, Apple's strategy fails to address heat death of the universe! Got 'em!" Of course your suggested scenario isn't as absurd, and the global supply chains reliance on a few privately held companies is indeed problematic. But the discussion was about Apples strategy and how they prepare with more foresight than their competitors, succeeding better under pressure. Not that they are omnipotent gods that can control and prepare for everything.

I've never needed to use 'git blame' and I see no reason to, unless you really are just trying to look for a person to blame.

Gas stations.

But were you still able to just look at the data or login as the user without the permission? I think that's the key question.

Talk is cheap. As a user it's not good enough for me that people are being told internally not to abuse their access. Just remove the permissions from the employees and make them request the permissions for each individual case instead of trusting the employees to follow the rules.

Sure, a meta-analysis of several studies reveals more than one single study, but that doesn't make a single study bad or worthless - or as said in the parent - "a bullshit study".

Sounds very familiar. Also, when I finally put my foot down to demand changes in order to avoid burnout, that was used against me when I was later discussing a pay raise. I learned to never bring up problems again, and got crashed hard.

Burnout is not just a subjective term. It is a highly researched syndrome and can be tested for.

Of course democracy requires a constitution and a stable society to work. If there is no constitution that protects human rights and a majority thinks enslavement is okay, democracy isn't the right tool anymore. That's a description of a failed society at war against each other. I'm not suggesting that all problems can be solved by vote, just that it's much better to solve problems by vote than by bloodshed or by who has the most money, if you have that option. In a failed society, such option does not exist. That doesn't mean that democracy doesn't work. It clearly does in several countries.

The efficacy of different kinds of action is highly dependent on the existing structures, of course. That's not to say that nothing can be done, it's just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job and gathering up people to join the cause.

You can vote, run for office, participate in demonstrations, strikes or any kind of direct action. The possibilities are endless. No single method guarantees success for a movement and nobody knows what will happen in advance, but in general the bigger the mass of people participating, the higher the likelihood of success. But sitting on your ass and blaming companies is guaranteed to fail, if meaningful change to the system is what you want.

Nobody says what Apple is doing is ethical, at least I sure didn't. The point is, the problem runs deeper than one company. The system has an incentive structure where companies benefit by doing as Apple does. It's like blaming a ball for rolling down a hill. If you don't want the ball to roll, go play on a level field.

>You appeal to government authority

You make this sound like I'm for some kind of dictatorship.

I firmly believe in a government democratically elected by the people. Even if the system is capitalist in nature, it should always be subservient to the will of the people. The governments should be tied to the will and interest of the people. Especially in the US it seems that the government acts for the corporate special interests. In that case, the solution is more democracy, not less.

>non-sustainable companies are NOT givin a "competitive advantage" by capitalism

So why are all the big companies ruining our climate then? What's the explanation? Random chance?

Capitalism doesn't give you any extra points for being sustainable. If anything, it can interfere or be in direct opposition to making profits. You win at capitalism by making profits. A non-sustainable competitor will eat you, if you start worrying about the environment too much. So greenwashing is the way to go for most companies, in order to avoid boycotts, and people are ready to believe it because these problems are complex and people don't want to think that the stuff they buy are hurting the environment. This is a very foreseeable result, given the incentives.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Demand change from the politicians.

Not everything about a person is their public image though. Summing up a persons life like that, even if you disagree with his public image, is just inhumane. Did you know him? Did you ever even see him once?

You are framing this as if I am somehow advocating censorship towards people, yet I am advocating the opposite position. Executives shouldn't be given a such huge powers of data mining and information distribution and ability shut powerless opposition and competition out. This is about preserving equal voice to all people, and preventing juggernauts from squashing it.

No, companies do not mind control people on an individual level, but what they do has all the traditional effects of monopolies/oligopolies that are not democratically controlled by the people affected but a handful of rich executives.

I'm not even going to go to the "advertising controls people" dialog tree. If it's not obvious why having the power of putting anything you want in front of billions of people is powerful, then I don't think there's a discussion worth having.

There should really be a whole new standard library made from ground up without `this`, mutability and all the other legacy stuff.

It's not a big thing of course with such a simple example, but just try to program without defining a single function and you'll see how tiresome it soon begins to write everything out manually.

Sure, it's a valid way of logging all the arguments that pass through forEach. I don't see a problem here?

>When using eta-reduction in Javascript both functions and all their (optional) arguments have to be known by the programmer and future programmers, instead of needing to know only the argument-slots being used by (x,y,...) => ...

My VSCode setup shows all arguments of functions automatically. Also, I always avoid optional arguments in my code and writing functions that take in a variable amount of arguments or arguments of different types. I always refactor these out of my codebase.

>Additionally, the way `this` in javascript works (or doesn't for a lot of callbacks) also pushes against using eta-reduction.

`this` is another smell that I always avoid using in my codebase, and refactor code that uses it to work without `this`. I thought `this` being harmful is common knowledge?