hn_throwaway_69

There are many books people suggest I read which I have heard of but haven't had a chance to. On the other hand, some suggestions here are slightly outlandish. To their credit, some of these people have provided a brief synopsis to enable one to quickly decide if it's their cup of tea or not.

My ultimate point is it strains credulity to think that there is a one size fits all approach to books. What you think is a great read others would say otherwise.

There is no one book I would recommend everyone read. Maybe if we got specific into a particular academic field, there is. Not generally, though.

With respect to those in this thread, I'm seeing a lot of suggestions of fairly niche books that I have never heard of or would consider reading.

It may be that there is no one book that I think everyone should read. Everyone has different tastes and interests, and what I think is a must read is probably on someone else's list of books never to read.

> My willingness to judge something should be proportional to how much I know about it.

When everyday folk start doubting the safety and/or effectiveness of mRNA vaccines this is what comes to my mind.

I'm not following.

This assumes that, generally, native apps are more buggy. Why? This is contestable at best, or getting it the wrong way around at the worst. Perhaps at the hands of inexperienced developers it's right. But experienced developers coding in native APIs will probably produce an app with fewer bugs.

And we are talking about a billion dollar company. It can afford a handful of really good native developers for each platform. It can attract talented developers who can write cross-platform native code.

Cross-platform toolkits introduce their own class of bugs, which might require patches upstream to resolve, or annoying local forks.

As for the economics of it all, I'll leave that to the other sub-comment which deals with that with an excellent analogy to Apple. People will pay for quality.

Once I broached this subject with a developer at a start-up that developed totally separate native apps for iOS and Android. I queried him about the use of native apps, and he made the point that you do whatever it takes to keep your users happy.

This was a startup. Not a billion dollar company. When your app is used by millions, it's a worthwhile investment.

It's also hardly boring to achieve the same end result on multiple platforms by using appropriate native code for each. Particularly when it produces satisfyingly fluid and responsive end results. Perhaps an engineer that considers it boring is in the wrong field. A UI developer should get satisfaction from developing UIs, not as it being a stepping stone to get into systems development. I can't think of anything more boring in app development than developing an app which operates in a mediocre way.

A carefully planned native app for each platform can still share parts of the same codebase, you're not necessarily reinventing the wheel each time.

A company that makes an awful lot of money can afford to not make an awful app on major platforms.

A native app on Windows, macOS, iOS and Android (TV), and some other solution for other platforms, isn't an unreasonable ask in this context.

Yes, I misread it. My bad.

Indeed I did. How embarrassing.

>An mp from the Social Democratic Party (spd), which leads the governing coalition, compared nuclear supporters (ludicrously) to anti-vaxxers.

Edit: Oops, misread it.

Really? Apples and oranges.

You can easily copy my comment into Google Translate. An app available on the web, iOS and Android, free of charge.

I can't use this chat app (to my knowledge) to communicate with friends using this app without spending a lot of money to buy an iPhone or Mac.

It's also impractical for me to provide my comment in every popular language in the world. Its even more so impractical to write every comment in a multilingual way. There are two major phone platforms and it's not an onerous ongoing obligation to provide chat apps for each platform.

You can't really equate the rules that should apply to full democracies with those that should apply to partial democracies or totalitarian regimes.

There's no evidence the US has used NSO like tools to spy on the opposition (post Watergate, anyway).

Partial democracies or totalitarian regimes shouldn't be given these tools under any circumstances since they can't be trusted to only use them to investigate legitimate crimes. They will present some bona fide use scenario, then use the tools for other undisclosed purposes.

If NSO Group had an ounce of ethics, it wouldn't provide the software, but would request a dossier/brief which outlines, with evidence, the basis on which intrusion into the target device is sought. It would then have an agent carry out exploitation. Political "crimes" should be refused service.

It's still possible to setup standalone UniFi access points.

I just tested it. The AP Lite 6 on the latest firmware can be set up in standalone mode with the latest Android app. You click the + icon in the top right, wait, then click other setup options -> standalone UniFi access point.

I imagine they'll eventually feed us with the tried and tested line, "this outage prevented us from updating the status page".

And we will reply with the obvious response, "run your status page on different infrastructure".

Edit: status page updated

Ubiquiti access points support meshing and you can run the controller yourself. I have AP Lite 6.

It's a paid product with a team who need to earn a living wage. It's not like VS Code where the team is bankrolled by a big organisation making its money on other proprietary products.

In light of the above, it makes sense for it to be proprietary and closed source.

Were it open source, people could fork it and distribute it freely, with no remuneration going back to the developers. I doubt the developers could offer any other incentive such as support to make up the shortfall.

"Source available" licences where the user is prohibited from providing the software to others doesn't meet the FSF's definition of freedom, so even that wouldn't please everyone.

>Finding an active wallet is hard, but not impossible.

Hard may be an understatement...

China always calls people and organisations who disagree with the government nasty names. Terrorists, propagandists, meddlers, revolutionists etc.

This continual name-calling of anyone who criticises any aspect of their government leads me to always doubt the sincerity of such accusations. Boy who cried wolf, writ large.

Could you provide independent sources that this Falun Gong spreads propaganda?

DNS A record suggests a dedicated server from this company:

https://www.m5hosting.com/

I haven't used my old AWS account in a while, it's just sitting dormant. Since it's old it's linked to my Amazon account (root credentials == Amazon.com credentials).

I don't want to monitor it and these stories give me some anxiety.

I guess I'm supposed to close my AWS account? I wonder if this is even possible if it's the same credentials as your Amazon account.

Just when I thought the antiquated concept of tipping couldn't get any worse. Where there's a bill, there's a tip to pay.

That's not what you said. You claimed it was a lie referring to Time Machine, not local backup options on iOS. macOS backup solutions are pretty much irrelevant, because it's obvious you can backup macOS using any tool you like, it's a desktop operating system where the user can run binaries with administrator privileges, unlike iOS. The compelling inference is they were talking about iOS, making Time Machine irrelevant to the discussion.

And there is a significant difference between offering an ill-informed opinion and lying. One can be reckless or negligent, but not a liar. To be a liar, they need to positively know they are wrong but post it anyway.

I was hoping you'd say it was simply used for rhetorical effect. I must say, I'm a little disappointed you're maintaining your position. Sometimes, it's best just to assume good faith.

They could be referring to iPhone, couldn't they? Which to my knowledge doesn't have Time Machine, a macOS feature.

I think it's best not to say something is a "lie" unless you have a strong basis for it, let alone asserting it is a "outright lie".

A lie is an intentionally false statement. It involves an intention to deceive. It's highly unlikely that someone on Hacker News would set out to intentionally mislead people who are familiar with the subject-matter and who know how to fact check.

At best they are "wrong", "misinformed" or "mistaken". Although, as said in the first paragraph, I suspect you're actually at cross-purposes with each other.

I take the view that there needs to be a penalty for people who send out these letters but fail in their ultimate claim.

If you send cease and desist letters without merit you should be forced to indemnify the respondent for the entirety of their attorney's fees and pay exemplary damages.

This would require lawyers to make a careful assessment about prospects of success, rather than hoping to scare the other side into capitulation.

These heavy handed tactics are just dreadful and shouldn't be accepted in any rational legal system.

To avoid doubt, I'm not saying that their claim doesn't have merit. Unfortunately you will need to pay a lawyer to find out.

As you essentially say, WireGuard is great. I firewall off direct SSH and first use WireGuard to connect to the server instead.

One advantage is that if your firewall is setup right it's completely invisible, as unauthenticated UDP packets are dropped, as is the case with any other, unused, UDP port.

I still configure SSH to best practices just in case a configuration blunder inadvertently causes the firewall to accept connections.

I also thought it was not helpful that he chose to include the word 'job' in the demonstration comment.

Their systems could perceive it as an attempt to evade the filter.

>Based on Apple not giving a shit what volume you’re buying, the price is the price. Maybe the rules are a bit different for Amazon, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

You're backpedaling now. Nowhere in your first comment was there any reference to degrees or margins - it was all or nothing (the "price is the price").

It's ok to admit you were mistaken.

The point is quite clear. It's not an appeal to authority. Experts are generally more qualified to express opinions on their topic of expertise, but this doesn't make them immune from criticism. It does, however, make it a bit harder to call their view into question, and calls for a more sophisticated approach, usually by referring to problems with their evidence or absence of consensus.

Suppose an expert in a field has offered an opinion on their topic of expertise. You criticise that view based on unreliable evidence. I point out to you that your evidence is unreliable, and that the expert's view should be preferred due to its higher reliability. It's no answer for you to invoke the appeal to authority fallacy. You need to show that your evidence really is reliable, or why it's wrong to characterise your evidence as unreliable.

Suppose on the other hand that an expert in a particular field offers a view outside of mainstream consensus. I say that his view should be accepted. You say his view is not mainstream consensus. I say that he's an expert so he must be right. This is an appeal to authority.

What an apt name.

Yikes.

It's really no big deal to provide that detail even if it transpires to be irrelevant.

Tall poppy syndrome is regrettably quite common here.