I thought all SSDs did that for wear-leveling purposes.
353 karma · joined December 18, 2023
Well, Apple did threatened to remove Facebook in the past, and they did get Meta to follow the rules back then
But, today, unfortunately I think you are right. If Apple bans Facebook, Meta will take the opportunity the EU has given them to start their own app store, which can have whatever privacy rules (read: none) they want.
I guess it's just another Brussels Effect.
Most of the noise seems to be coming from developers, so, to me, it looks like Apple is doing a good job as my agent.
First, a skewed distribution of "wheat" and "chaff" apps. I would bet there are at least 10x as many "chaff" submissions as "wheat" submissions. Passing that distribution through a classifier with 90% precision and 90% recall will result in "only" a 50:50 mix of wheat and chaff apps in the app store.
Actually, I could easily see the skew being 100x simply because nothing really stops a malicious actor from hiring 100 different mules to create 100 different developer accounts and submitting the same malicious app until it randomly passes review. Having only a 50:50 mix of apps now requires 99% precision and recall.
Second, the principal-agent problem. I would bet the amount of app store reviewers who are receiving bribes is not zero, and further that bribing app store reviewers is probably among the highest marketing ROI spend that fraudsters do. Apple/Google can randomize who reviews which app, but how many reviewers do they have? If I bribe one reviewer, how many copies of my malicious app (see previous paragraph) do I need to submit before one of them is routed to "my" reviewer? Probably not many.
Even with honest reviewers, I'm sure reviewers have some kind of daily quota they have to meet. If you're behind quota, are you going to carefully review an app, or reject it for tenuously-applicable reasons? That annoys app developers, but does the reviewer care? No, they hit quota, which is all that matters to them.
I'm sure someone will reply "well, Apple/Google should just ____". I hear you, but your proposal is either going to be much more expensive, much slower, or result in more bad apps being approved. In other words, it's likely that the current system is (nearly) pareto-optimal.
$99/yr is clearly a fair and reasonable compensation to license all Disney IP for any purpose because Disney has an eleventy bajillion percent margin on ticket sales.
They already tried that with the "Core Technology" fee, and the EU smacked them for it. So doing what you propose is probably a non-starter.
One consequence of the DMA is that you can't build certain products because there is no way to recoup the development cost.
You also get a huge reduction when you turn on SpO2 (off by default on Garmin, on by default on iWatch). Same for music, always on display, etc etc etc.
Oh, really?
https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/GUID-EECCAC99-90D6-4...
Looks like they last dramatically less than that if you buy an Garmin with comparable display and actually use the advertised features.
There are not enough houses, and you are encouraging more long-term demand for houses…
> We also don't need to avoid the middle of the country. The population has been moving to the coasts
Maybe a better question to ask yourself is why people prefer living on the coasts. What government policies draw them from the cheap places to the expensive places? How can you copy those policies to convince people to move back?
It’s a disingenuous argument.
Only all the people who voted for them and all the people who voted against them?
You forgot to mention that only half of capital gains were subject to tax. So the highest marginal rate was 45.5%.
Competition means differentiating your product. You don’t have competition if both products are the same.
Apple is trying to differentiate by offering a curated experience. Google is trying to differentiate by offering less curation and more customizability. Both are valid.
It would be bad for competition if iOS and Android were just copies of each other. That would be malaise.
How can you say that with a straight face? The EU opposes other companies being forced to! That’s why they wrote their DMA the way they did!
While I think the Vance meme reflects very poorly on my country, it is always advisable to remember that you have very limited rights in every country while crossing the border and that it best not to piss off the officers. Travel StackExchange is filled with Q&A’s about how to what to do when the customs officials of various rich countries apply their discretion to deny entry, often for reasons even more petty than having a meme.
It is only if your words are likely to promptly cause someone to commit violence that you can be prosecuted for it.
See, for instance: https://www.info.gouv.fr
Normally you go with "that didn't actually happen" or "that was an isolated incident by rogue commanders".
My dictionary gives this definition for "poaching":
1. to trespass for the purpose of stealing game
2. to appropriate (something) as one's own
You cannot "steal" or "appropriate" something which is not property or which cannot be owned. You are being very disingenuous to say that the word is not intrinsically linked to ownership or property.
I do wonder if the last election would have gone differently if all the people directly and indirectly affected by that hadn't been.
I expect that the 18 week bootcamp affords an opportunity to closely observe all such conscripts and screen them for mental health disorders and behavioral problems, and that the (minimum) of 7 years of reserve service allows ongoing monitoring.
Additionally, common sense tells me that Switzerland's equivalent of "dishonorable" or "other-than-honorable" discharge would result in that person not having the opportunity to buy their service rifle, and possibly putting up roadblocks to owning a gun at all.
Therefore the people in Switzerland most likely to cause gun crime do not have ready access to them. That is quite different to how we think about it in the US.
If you were to seriously propose such a system in the US, I think you would get far more opposition from the pro-gun groups than the anti-gun groups. In fact, anti-gun groups would welcome adopting the Swiss system, since it so closes matches the legislation they have tried to enact such as magazine size restrictions in California, "red flag" laws in other states, and mandatory trigger locks. All of those laws have been opposed by groups like the NRA.