defaultname

For the vast majority of people in the vast majority of situations, it's a very good thing and is ideal behavior. It is only in conspiratorial "but what if nation states are tracking me" noise that this is cast as a bad thing.

A ProRAW photo is a DNG file, using the new features added to DNG 1.6. It isn't proprietary.

There are many reasons why someone might choose some hardware or platforms over other hardware or platforms. The paradox, though, is that if someone believes it's all or nothing -- that they have to tie their ego with a platform -- their judgment is likely suspect to begin with. When people do the "I'm leaving 𝑥" type declarations, it almost always comes from an unhealthy place.

Somehow I've managed to own an SLR alongside every system I've used for the past decade+ (though it sits unused to a much greater degree given how vastly improved modern smartphones are...). I have a Lenovo Windows laptop, a Windows 10 gaming PC, an Intel MBP, an M1 Mac Mini, an iPhone, an iPad, though I've owned a number of Android tablets and smartphones (including every Nexus device) before. Every server system I've deployed in the past decade has been to Linux.

No Apple stormtroopers ever busted down my doors and demanded compliance. Never did I feel the need to wave a flag or commit to a tribe, because why would I? The notion is self-sabotaging.

The post can be distilled down to "I had a Mac and thought it made me special, but now I don't feel special so I use something else and think that makes me special".

Which...I guess? Millions (billions) of people use all sorts of stuff. Good for them.

The "I'm leaving [some platform]" posts are always extremely low value pablum for a subset.

For those who rightly have TechCrunch blacklisted, the article's grand observation is that an electronics company makes product that is only a bit better than their prior product.

That's it. That's the foundation of this noise. For Apple in particular we've had these noisy articles since the first iPhone.

I'm embarrassed that I wasted a click on it, but hopefully I can save someone else the trouble.

Astonishing.

"Yet you've been able to present none"

What am I supposed to present? A complete history of computer science and system design?

"isn't possible"

Any app on any system, if exploitable, can be used for a chain attack to exploit further vulnerabilities (and 14.8 was a bandaid for just such an attack). That's ignoring that iMessages is also such a high value target for its own data, in the same way that Signal and other messaging apps are high value targets, and not just as a path to chaining 0 days.

This is a not useful conversation that I hesitated engaging in at first glance (when someone does the "if only they just waved hand everything would be great" it's founded in dubious logic 100% of the time), so feel free to reply into the ether.

I understand that you disagree, however your disagreement seems to be based upon a pretty significant misunderstanding/lack of knowledge both about these apps and their privileges.

How Apple distributes their core apps (Safari, Mail, etc) is orthogonal to how they are implemented, secured, ring levels, sandboxing, etc. These are separate considerations.

Apple's core philosophy is that upgrading the system is the fundamental way to get new things. With iOS 15 we've seen the first real fracture in this model (where they are promoting a "stay on iOS 14 for now" option), and maybe eventually they'll separately distribute some of the tied applications.

Google started Android with a very similar model to iOS but quickly recognized it was turning into a disaster given the slow uptake of new Android versions. Turning what were system level components (e.g. play services) into "apps" was a necessity.

PWAs are a market failure [1], and the deployment/utilization of them approximates 0%, including on Android where, the many comments tell us, it's a high power panacea.

[1] - Though it is astonishing how well the cloud gaming options work as PWAs. The one place where they've made any headway.

The original issues with the app weren't opaque at all: Keyboard utilities can't have network access. Then he noted that it can operate without it, but the entitlement can't even exist for any users, even optionally. That is very clearcut.

At least without the App Store reviewers crawling all over everything you do, putting an enormous level of scrutiny over everything you do. And the functionality has to justify it (not that it should operate without it, but with it has to validate why -- is it using some massive cloud resource to guess your next word, etc?)

That he ever got away with it was during confusion over keyboards on the watch where they weren't officially sanctioned and thus policed.

But otherwise he's engaged in building features for someone else's platform. Eventually those features get first party inclusion. This is the surest thing in this industry, and people comparing it to sherlock, etc -- ridiculous. Apple made a larger Apple watch so they decided it's time for a keyboard. That this guy is trying to claim some sort of moral/intellectual ownership over keyboards and/or swype typing is ridiculous, and it's the sort of overreach that is usually criticized viciously on HN.

And if Apple truly made an offer to "buy" his keyboard, it was certainly just to settle bad blood. The likely outcome would have been that they toss his solution and then do exactly what they did, which is build their own.

Sure, point out the hyperbole. I'll point out how predictable it is.

The universe is balanced.

The A15 details were pretty tame, so maybe the "easy" wins are getting a little harder. While traditionally Apple heralds performance improvements over the prior generation, this time they seemed to stick purely to "versus the competition". We know that the A## are much faster than the competition, not to mention that the majority of prospective iPhone 13 buyers are considering upgrading from a prior generation(s) of iPhone, so the competition isn't a good frame of reference.

As an aside -- came to make this comment after seeing the thread but had to jump away for a sec, to come back to find this submission on the fourth page, clearly having been flagged off the front page. ROFL.

Sidenote - XCode 13 Release Candidate was just made available.

Everyone overhypes their product releases. But the reality is that most of us just don't pay attention to them. Microsoft talking about Windows? Eh. Samsung announcing something? Neat.

Apple announces something, however, and the detractors just have to flood in and give their hot takes. I suppose that speaks to the influence of Apple now.

Every single company that sells things does this. You are talking about an Apple event and promo page where they are quite literally giving a sales pitch for their new products. That they (over)hype their own products is not only not notable or interesting, it's entirely expected.

It is a bit bizarre that your comment, or variations of it, appears for every single Apple release. For those people so jaded and annoyed at the existence of Apple, why not just skip those threads?

There's something unique about Apple that draws in the detractors, however (seriously -- just look at the comments! What a junkyard of noise). It's a bit like a thread about the Super Bowl having hundreds of comments by people announcing that they aren't interested in the Super Bowl. Neat.

As the story clearly indicates, they re-examined backups and recently made a very valuable discovery that everyone should be extremely thankful for. And Apple turned around a worldwide patch for a billion plus devices in less than a week after being notified.

I'd rather the flaw wasn't there in the first place, but a remarkable effort by both parties given that it was there.

The overwhelming bulk of the Ruby entrants on that list formed in 2009-2012 (as did Shopify). At the time Ruby was the love interest of HN, and it isn't at all surprising that the HN-affiliated had an affinity to it. The next cycle will be built on whatever the current hotness is. Rinse and repeat.

No one should cargo cult off of that. Ultimately the product is magnitudes more important than the technology (at least in most cases).

"Ruby (my personal interest, here) has been steadily gaining share in that chart year over year, despite not being "cool" anymore."

I have a comment from yesterday that is (rightly) sitting at -4 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28501661) that seems relevant: The rise of Ruby on that chart can be directly correlated with the rise of Shopify.

Elsewhere they note that Shopify "accounts" for 3.9% of the top million websites. The bulk of Ruby's increase.

Though I'm suspicious of the accuracy of their numbers. Most modern tech stacks don't announce themselves in the way that PHP did, and they clearly used curated metadata to attribute some major content engines (e.g. Shopify = Ruby, Wordpress = PHP, Wikis = PHP, etc), which means that anything outside of the top identifiable content engines isn't going to have proper attribution.

Further, note that literally any use gets credited. Look at the "popular sites using Shopify" at -

https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cm-shopify

Overwhelmingly they get the shopify/ruby credit for linking to a minimal checkout experience on a subdomain. That seems...incredibly dubious.

Still neat though. But what it really demonstrates is that product wins, not technology. Wordpress is clearly a winning product. Shopify is a winning product.

Rather tangential, however Ruby seems to exist entirely on the backs of Shopify now [1], and every Ruby-related post on here goes back to a Shopify employee. Did the founder of Shopify start with Ruby so now they’re wed to it culturally? Each of these Ruby posts has a gross mismatch between engagement and score.

I apologize for the digression, but Shopify today reminds me of some Delphi/object pascal shops I’d engaged with earlier in my career. Where the tooling became the primary focus and identity of the staff rather than the solutions (a sort of cargo culting off of that initial business success), and that focus meant the firm ended up being staffed with what could best be described as big fish in little ponds (e.g. the “Delphi expert” who was the guy who stuck with Delphi after everyone else had moved on to other technologies), in a recursive loop.

[1] - other successful companies started with Ruby / RoR (though in many cases it could be called legacy), but right now it seems that 100% of Ruby advocacy comes out of the halls of Shopify. The firm has turned to evangelism.

The same in Canada -- the hours and even phone numbers are wrong frequently enough that it makes them entirely untrustworthy and thus ignored. I just search for the business website to find those sorts of details, and it isn't something I expect from a mapping product.

Designing to remain robust in the face of failures is compulsory for any project of any significance. Or at least it should be, though a lot of projects go on a wing and a prayer that nothing will go awry and "save" those engineering hours until a catastrophe at some future point. It basically just prioritized what already should be a priority.

I have no doubt that fringe/niche instances have more competitive spot behaviors, though how you set your bid range dramatically impacts how you survive through competition, but I had vanilla instances last for literal years (note that by default the spot requisition has a lifespan of one year so you have to modify that) at per hour pricing somewhere in the range of 1/5th on demand.

But mileage will vary.

I don't use those spot instances anymore as my projects are much better financed now, and I have significant compute on other platforms including bare metal in colocation facilities. However when I did I stayed silent about it, feeling almost like it was a secret that would be ruined if others knew about it.

On a price sensitive project I almost exclusively used spot instances at a dramatically reduced price over on-demand. It forced me to built high availability elements into the design at the outside, though ultimately spot instances got shut down no less frequently than my experience with on demand maintenance and individual machine outages.

Obviously mileage will vary, but going in I was under the impression that spot instances were on the knife's edge, when with a decent pricing strategy they're as robust as on demand at a fraction of the cost.

It is clear he is being humorously jocular, exaggerating for effect (Twitter performance art that works wonders -- he's done well observing that the smart scale that he connected to the internet also does smart scale stuff). Those people taking this seriously need to take a walk and get some fresh air.

"I don’t even remember giving permission for our fridge to email"

He connected it to the internet and now it does stuff. He also clearly gave it his email address. How does one give "permission" for a smart device to email (beyond a giant T&C agreement that he obviously agreed to)? Who is so overburdened by an email?

This sort of "dystopia everything is hell look at all this crazy stuff!" shtick surprisingly does well, and it's bizarre.

The fridge emailed basically a performance report to the address that he configured on setup. One of the performance report items is that it had been opened a lot, which does impact efficiency and food longevity.

It didn't email a complaint. It did precisely what he configured it to do (I will go on a limb and presume the fridge didn't guess his email address), and presumably what he expected it to do given that he paid a large premium for a "smart" fridge.

There is no problem here beyond that often Twitter makes everyone a comedian/performance artist and people often take their routines a little too seriously.

Do you believe that most developers are up in arms about this, ready to abandon the platform? I doubt more than a tiny fraction really care about this at all, and the hysterics on HN (threads brigaded by a small percentage of HN users) are not representative. Predictions of some massive sales drop -- or even a sales drop at all -- are deluded nonsense.

Apple is delaying this, I suspect, because it confuses the privacy message: If every time they talk about privacy someone can make them look like hypocrites by pointing out the on-device scanning, well that's just ugly for Apple. I suspect the on-device scanning element is going to be removed and it'll be on ingress to iCloud, which is what I said on my very first post to this. It was ill-considered to do it on device given Apple's privacy push.

The "common good" is one of the most fundamental elements of the Canadian perspective and there has never been such a focus on "freedom of speech".

Gun rights, speech rights, etc, all are weighed against the common good at every juncture. Hate speech has never been considered a personal right in Canada.

It's kind of all over the place.

The initial point is simply that Go or C# or Java in their normal form aren't "system programming" suitable (which generally means low-level kernels and system services and projects having similar needs. Notepad on Windows isn't system programming), and it's unrealistic for Go to be ranked highly on such a list, much less before Rust which is purpose built for this task.

Could someone use them for system programming? Sure they could. It would be the wrong tool but people makes loads of bad decisions.

The point about Linux and other operating system choices wasn't a rule, it was an observation that the rhetoric often plied on developer boards -- usually where developers want everything to be a nail to their skillset hammer -- has little correlation with the world. Nowhere did I exclude Ada or any other compiled, non-GCd (which Ada never uses when used for anything of any criticality) languages. Anything can make just as good of native code.

"Yeah, maybe you were doing it wrong."

I think you misread my comment which was pointing out that COM is an interfacing standard, and has little to nothing to do with language choices or this conversation. Pointing out that there are multiple languages that can build to it isn't a counterpoint, but actually is the reason I made my comment. It's like saying you "developed the program in JSON over HTTP" in a conversation about programming languages.

Though regardless of that, Microsoft uses C++ for the overwhelming majority of a Windows install (this is trivial to verify). This is meaningless, having nothing to do with the root comment, but somehow this conversation was pulled there.

Windows programs can be written in just about anything. No one ever contested that. "Low-level" code, however, is seldom done in the GC languages. Seldom doesn't mean never, as stated over and over again, and Googling for random fringe counterexamples aren't counterpoints.

Not only did Google not write Fucshia in Go, they explicitly made it a forbidden language (listing a litany of reasons to exclude it and any other GC language -- the same reasons that apply to most "low-level" code), they set a goal to migrate any parts imported in. Maybe not the best example.

"A basic proof how much Windows systems programming experience you have."

Which programming language would one write "COM" in? I am so poorly skilled that I must have missed that language. I spent a decade+ writing Windows code, including exposing it through COM/COM+/DCOM, but apparently I was doing it wrong.

And while there is loads of C++ in what we consider the Windows platform, there is vanishingly little .NET.

The "Linux bubble" comment is especially weird. I spend my day in macOS, with most of my day being in XCode slinging Swift and GoLand spinning Go. Somehow I can evaluate the world without trying to mangle it to fit whatever my current primary skills are.

"while I did my best to be polite while pointing out the extent to which the wall of ill-considered snark I was replying to was, at best, woefully underinformed, I readily admit that I did still fall somewhat short."

I was being polite in not openly pointing out that your comment was trolling of absolutely no value or purpose, predicated entirely on your own misreading, but here we are.