ghusto

Most of the post makes sense to me, even if I don't agree. This part however:

> The news is full of stories of corporations that are throttling the employee use of AI since the costs to use the software are a lot higher than expected

is not something I've seen. News is not "full of stories" of this behaviour. There are a few anecdotal stories here and there.

Read up on "democratic socialism" because it was a term I wasn't familar with. I have to say people should be mindful of words and ideas meaning different things in different places.

"Capatalism" means something different in the USA than it does in say France. In the USA, any attempt to keep check of or reign in capatalism is seen as socialism, and governemnt overreach. In France it's seen as common sense, though they would still say they practice "capatalism". Similarly, taking care of people that can't take care of themselves is obvious in France, but seen as nearing socialism in the USA.

It's important to note, because when people go for things like "democratic socialism", they may not be against what they think they're against.

It was _especially_ like this further back. You literally could not survive without the tribe, and the tribe had norms-and-values you had to adhere to, some of which were to do with family units. This went for nomads and settlers alike.

> Earn slightly too much, and vital support disappears

My reading of this is that the threshhold for the USA government to withdraw financial (and other?) support for disabled people is too low, is that right?

Thank goodness you'll never be allowed anywhere near software anyone uses.

Absolutely, and in my opinion it's a mistake to keep adding features. My word processor in the 90s did one thing, and it was fine. In fact, there's a niche crowd trying to re-create that experience right now (distraction-free "writerdecks"). All software used to be like that, and I for one was a lot happier with the situation.

I think this is essentially it. Couple with the thought that there's nowhere else to turn, Apple laptops and phones are the best choice in a bucket of bad choices.

I could list endlessly the issue with iPhones and Macbooks, but they're _just_ more convenient enough to have to use them over alternatives. Lots of little examples like the way that Airpods work when jumping from the same video call on my phone to my Mac for example, add up to be useful enough to put up with just how shitty iPhones are.

For anybody else reading, please disregard. Nothing is expected to be kept secret without a signature.

I have to assume you aren't familar with the corporate world in the slightest. This is absolutely not how it works.

Anything that is supposed to be confidential has a signature. This is because without it, the person "leaking" information can always claim ignorance.

That's a lot of unpaid mental gymnastics you're doing there to excuse Apple of their trademark shitty behaviour, and it _still_ doesn't negate the very black and white statement: “We want the iTunes Music Store to have every piece of music ever recorded. Even if it’s discontinued or not selling much, we want it all.”

And now remember this whenever you listen to absolutely anything coming out from Apple.

The pattern has been there since the 90s, but younger people fall for it. What they say is primarly PR, and any truth is a happy co-incidence.

> Software may have been better back in the day, but that was mainly because it was much simpler. ... The bar for “user experience” has kept rising, but everything has become increasingly fragile.

It was simpler, better, more stable, _and_ had better UX.

Complexity does not equal quality. In fact, it usually points to poor design. Programs used to be seen as utilities, which enabled the same kind of mentality you have to any specialised machinery: "Here's a thing that can make your life easier. Learn how to use it". Now programs try to be all-singing-all-dancing-all-the-time-changing.

So many strange assumtions, but the most striking is that you're presuming the user doesn't know what they want to happen.

"you'd prefer to seamlessly be switched back to the main app to do the thing you launched it for"

Would I? How do you know? Why do yo think so? This is such an odd thing to be sure about.

I can not think of a single scenario where stealing focus would be desirable.

Also, the presumption that I'm going to wait around for 5+ seconds whilst an opens is unrealistic.

As always, Apple has designed for the happy flow, and nothing else. Mac apps have never opened instantly, this is nothing new.

> They'll be doing lots of things all at once

Make all of those things be related to "make the platform stable".

> If you users have to go anywhere near a command line, or Docker, or they have to hand-edit HTML or CSS, you're creating walls most users aren't going to scale.

Oh, no?

They do now, because they realised people will put up with that crap when they looked at PC gamers. They didn't used to.

> Having a large part of your team be unable to reproduce bugs is a significant development issue

But I just said, they are free and able to use development builds, regardless of geographical location. As far as I know, the OS is exactly the same, just has certain things disabled depending on region (for example you can breifly see the iPhone mirroring in the EU the first time, before it disapears).

> Firefox has struggled to get the sliver of market share they have today. I highly doubt that there are that many people like you and me who crave a real Firefox engine on iOS.

Why bother with any of it then? If it's hopeless and not enough people want it, why even bother?

There are a lot of well thought out good solutions being posted here, but you have to bear in mind that these companies don't see a problem to be solved in the first place. It's like telling a mafia boss the solution to the cops being after him is to quit doing criminal things.

The solution is piracy.

And as usual, Apple has it crippled in order to make sure it can't complete with whatever they're trying to sell you instead:

https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...

I'm guessing the "many people [you] know" are category 2. Many people are in category 3, because most of the world is category 3.

Sorry, but I don't buy any of that. I've been defending Mozilla for years, but enough's enough.

> but all existing Firefox users would have to download a second Firefox browser app, probably sync their accounts if they want to keep their data, and then remove the old one manually. You'd end with a Google Meet/Microsoft Teams situation (where one app is labeled "new" and it confuses the hell out of everyone)

You're making it sound like a problem, but those actions are trivial. You tell someone who's dying for a non-webkit browser on iOS "well okay, but you know you'll have to download another browser! And even sign-in again!". You really think they care?

> Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are.

They absolutely can, because they're free to install development builds, which is what they should be testing anyway. Regardless, if development starts migrating slowly to the EU, that's a natural consequence.

> Then there's the (what I can only presume to be illegal) Apple Tax you need to pay to distribute an app outside of the app store

This is the only real issue, but even then I'd say Mozilla should take the money they're spending on their current nonsense and spend it here instead. "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all". Really? Prove it. Furthermore, if we role over on this because of the obviously anticompetitive malicious complience Apple is showing, they win. This is the first step to getting them to remove that fee.

I'm tired of defending Mozilla here, so I have to say that working on their web browser is not a priority for them. In fact, it seems like they're interested in everything _but_ working on Firefox.

Housing is the only one I can agree on. The place is so damn big that outside of places like New York, you can get 2/3 times the space for the same money, in a lot of places even more!

The study focuses on books (and comics, but that only bumped it up by a couple of percent).

> That said, I find it odd that people assume that reading a book is always higher quality than reading the internet etc.

It's not all that odd to me. The barrier of entry to getting something printed and published is much, much, higher than putting something online, which effects the quality quite a bit.

Obviously there are complete wastes of paper out there in terms of published books, but as a generalisation it's not odd to presume a printed book is going to be of higher quality than a webpage.

Except they don't _need_ to update, it's just a manifestation of the the very PC-ification we're talking about. You used to pop the game in, press the on button, and be playing. At some point someone figured out that if PC gamers were willing ot put up with unfinished games being shipped, so would console gamers, and it was downhill from there.

It "just works", unless it's time for a patch for that game. Which 98% of the time.

They make sense to many people, even if not to you.

I'll take a one-function device over a general device any day. You switch it on, it does the thing, you switch it off. General purpose computers are the exception that proves the rule, in that "the thing" in their case _is_ everything.

I couldn't care less about playing with randos on the internet, but am very interested in playing with people I know in the same room.