aussieshibe

To be clear: I'm mostly complaining about the general concept of people giving "I like A" answers to "should we allow people to choose B over A" questions.

Your comment was an example of that, if not a particularly egregious one. We're not about to sway Apple in a HN comment thread. Specific reference to your comment was intended only to use it as an example to illustrate the point.

> I expressed no such fear or concern as far as I'm aware?

Nor did I claim that you did. While it is not your position that allowing others a choice would harm you, explicitly mentioning that you don't stand to lose anything by allowing that choice is supportive of the main point in the next sentence.

> the parent asked for a counter-opinion

They didn't.

That's interesting. Is that incompatibility specific to the Flip 3? I have a Fold 4, and Google Wallet works for me.

Would giving people the ability to opt out of Apple's ultra-managed experience and take more control over their device harm your ability to continue to enjoy those benefits?

I heard an argument like this a lot at the start of discussions about whether we should be able to choose to WFH in the longer term. "I don't want to WFH because..." Ok, sure, but nobody is trying to force you to.

It might just be me, and I'll definitely fret about whether I'm being unreasonable for at least the next couple of hours, but this kinda frustrates me.

I'm supportive of your choice, but you already get to do the thing you want, and nobody is trying to take that away.

Expressing that you wouldn't behave any differently given more options is a distraction in a discussion about whether other people should be allowed to make a different choice.

Mushy rice is best rice.

Plus if you can hydrate while you eat, it's more efficient!

> what is it?

The meat pie is the (unofficial) national dish of Australia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_pie_(Australia_and_New_...

Are you measuring volume or weight?

That doesn't sound like anywhere near enough water to me. I do roughly 1 cup of jasmine rice to 1.5 cups of water in my instant pot, comes out perfect every time.

If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

I feel like you missed some qualification here:

> I still believe that suicide should never be the option

From the rest of your comment, it sounds like you were facing some form of severe but ultimately temporary problem.

People considering suicide are not necessarily in this same boat, and circumstances make all the difference.

To believe that suicide should "never" be the option suggests that you're only considering a subset of people who are in a similar situation to the one you faced. There are plenty of situations which give a reasonable expectation of permeance, or cause such severe suffering that while possibly temporary may not be worth enduring.

To me it comes down to the freedom to choose, for people of sound mind making a rational decision. I'm young, healthy, and generally happy, but there are absolutely situations which may affect me in the future over which I would prefer death, and I firmly believe I should have the freedom to make that choice if the time ever comes.

Is that an argument against voluntary euthanasia though?

My parents have both told me they would sooner die than go to a nursing home. Knowing them, I believe both that they mean it and that they would be utterly miserable in a nursing home. Obviously I would be distraught if it came to that, but how selfish would I have to be to tell them "no, you must go to this place that you'll hate because of the impact it will have on me if you die"?

I certainly think there should be controls. A waiting period, mandatory psych checkup to validate rationality and sound mind. If those (quite low) bars are cleared though, I don't see any reason that people shouldn't be able to choose to die.

To your second point, doctors don't necessarily need to be the vendors of legalised euthanasia.

A rheumatologist friend of mine once expressed that he is generally supportive of the idea of voluntary euthanasia, but believes this should involve creating some kind of "assisted dying professional" role. Asking doctors to euthanize people creates (as he put it) a kind of conflict of interest; the person who is there to help you live should not be the same person who can, if you choose, help you die.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Mostly with this bit though:

> "Management" ... are ... doing a shit job

One strategy I like to use when I encounter a manager doing a shit job is to complain about my six figure salary every 1:1 while putting in the minimum possible effort. Eventually they tend to leave and never take a management job again.

Works a treat.

What, in your view, is the difference between organised workers and a trade union?

Trade unions are groups of workers organised around the common cause of improving worker pay and rights.

You said the organised workers part isn't a bad idea, so I have to assume you're objecting to the only other defining feature of trade unions: collectively striving for better pay and conditions?

I can't tell if you're joking.

If you're seriously asking, how about that unions have consistently and successfully fought for better treatment and pay for workers all around the world. Many of the standards we expect today only exist because of union action over the last century or so.

Developers are no different from any other worker in the sense that they have more power as a group than individually. That generally has translated to better conditions, better pay.

As the gp comment suggests, it seems entirely plausible that this same effect would apply when applied to vendors. A union/guild/group of people is more able to exert influence over vendors than any one individual, and vendors have a bigger incentive to keep them happy and address any issues promptly. Individuals are, as the op demonstrates, completely at the mercy of megacorps.

I suspect this will be the final straw for many users, myself included.

Would that actually make sense?

Maybe I don't want to know.

I'm still grappling with my last bout of "holy moly is the universe a simulation?" after reading about a way of dealing with latency in networked games that looks a lot like relativity.

Nothing is "inherently or automatically bad". Good and bad are matters of opinion, not fact.

In my opinion, all ads are bad, and the world would be a better place if advertising were strictly limited to publishing product details in some kind of directory (think along the lines of a phone book).

This is exactly what the gp comment was saying though, isn't it?

Apple doesn't care about their users, except insofar as keeping users happy can make Apple money.

In cases where keeping users happy can't make Apple money, they don't care about their users.

That's quite subjective.

To someone with no money to spend, Mathematica isnt really an alternative to Mathics.

For sure, AussieBroadband are (sample size of one) fantastic.

I particularly like that they've exposed some of the NBN troubleshooting tools to customers.

They also skipped over that "we'll provision more CVC capacity when we see it flatline for at least four hours a day" phase that most other retailers seemed to go through.

They don't quite have the same old school nerd appeal that Node had though. Things like free Usenet, games.on.net, unmetered downloads from the fairly well stocked mirror..

It's a shame Internode went the way it did after iiNet/TPG took over.

Old Node was one of those rare companies where I actually believed they put their customers and employees before their bottom line. It's just TPG with different branding now.

(by the way, has anyone seen my orange watch?)

I think the OP meant the VoIP service was provided by T-Mobile.

It's above-and-beyond of you to follow up at all in that situation, IMHO.

Taking "I need X next Wednesday" at face value to mean "as long as I have X by 5pm Wednesday I'm happy" is completely reasonable.

Fair warning: everything I know about orbital mechanics is from Kerbal Space Program.

The moon cannot orbit at a higher speed while keeping the same semi-major axis (average distance to the orbital centre of mass).

If you suddenly doubled the orbital speed of the moon right now, the apoapsis (the highest point in its orbit relative to the orbital centre of mass) would increase significantly.

If you slowly accelerate the moon in the direction of its orbital velocity consistently over a long time period, the moon will slow down relative to the Earth, but it's semi major axis will increase.

Actual scientists of HN: have at me.

You are, of course, welcome to make whatever judgement you like about my preferences. "Abnormal psychology" seems a bit extreme though.

I don't like knowing that my image is recorded by surveillance cameras when I go out in public.

A few decades ago someone might have said, "Well, you can choose to just not go to those places which have surveillance cameras," and that would have been a perfectly valid suggestion to solve my immediate problem at the time.

A few decades later, in 2022, the city that I live in has cameras and facial recognition everywhere. Avoiding them means never going to the supermarket, visiting the CBD, driving practically anywhere.

I don't think the hypothetical person was a shill for "Big Camera". It seems much more likely that they don't believe or haven't considered the possibility that proliferation of surveillance could lead to a future where stepping out your front door will result in your image being sent to Amazon by your neighbours doorbell. Or that they're fine with that future, but have no sympathy for people who aren't I guess.

Asking from a place of ignorance, not argument:

Is opting out of physical location tracking expensive? I just checked on my Pixel and was able to find a setting which ostensibly can disable location services after a few seconds of searching through settings.

What am I missing here?

What's the difference?

If I were to renovate in a style which doesn't appeal to me, but has broader market appeal, it's still for me. The only difference is that I value the long term potential future income more than I value the loss of short term adherence to my taste.

I wrote "countries", not "continents". I also have not claimed that the US is the most violent country.

By the metric you've presented as a yard stick for violence (Peace Index), there are only 33 countries which are worse off than the US.

Sure, those 33 countries mean the US has a worse peace index than ~80% of countries, not 100%. I concur that (based on this metric alone) the US is not the #1 most violent country.

Having said that: being worse than 80% of countries on any metric, in my opinion, is easily enough to be able to say "worse than the rest of the world" and have a reasonable expectation for that to be understood as hyperbole.

I understand the objection to the general "why write X when I can see X" point. Obviously not everyone who can read some text can also watch a video.

In this specific case though, is conveying the color of the sweater to people who can't or don't watch the video important? Why mention the color of his sweater, but not the color of his eyes, his hairstyle, or any of countless other unrelated visual details?

Trying to put myself in the shoes of someone using a screen reader, maybe these little details give some extra context which, while irrelevant to the topic, help to give "color" to the story which I, as a person who is able to watch the video, am taking for granted?

This comment reminds me of one of my favourite Mitchell and Webb sketches: https://youtu.be/nWoWHzq21tA

My interpretation was that "the rest of the world" is meant to refer to "the rest of the countries in the world" not "the rest of the people in the world".

To say that the US has a worse peace index than the rest of the countries in the world is still hyperbole, but it's not so far off the truth.

The US has the 129th best peace index of 163 countries, right after Egypt, Zimbabwe, and Azerbaijan.