They didn't break userspace. Your opinions as a "long-term Linux user" are effectively useless.
111 karma · joined December 18, 2020
Please don't vouch for my comments.
Now read the comments before. This borders on parody at this point.
It would be cool if all of the "this is the last straw!" and "welp, guess this is when I leave Mac" people who appear in each of these threads just, like, fuck off and leave then?
What a funny retort. Wait, are you just making up the notion that we can "identify" whales moving billions? Do we check the central trade registry and cross reference with billionaires?
Do you know how any of this works? Or are you just making this up?
Unless you're the SEC, this isn't possible. Reporters can't do that, so if you're taking the absence of that evidence as evidence, you are simply ignorant.
LOL. Give me a break.
This is ___100%___ a P&D scam. They can squeeze shorts because they target trash stocks of failing businesses (you know -- the stocks that get shorted), then create a positively ridiculous story about a value proposition. A bunch of moron retail investors on Reddit aren't going to do shit to squeeze shorts, but they're the front for a couple of very well financed players.
But...something something Nancy Pelosi. Christ. Yeah, she's really scamming the system playing a stock at all time highs. Real elite moves.
The GameStop play (as with BBB, AMC, Express, etc) are classic pump and dumps, albeit with a short-squeeze magnifier (basically equal to a DDOS amplification). And if you really traced back to the origin, I highly doubt you're going to find some Joe Nobody -- you're going to find some very well financed, planned player.
GameStop is a doomed enterprise in an obsolete space (selling physical copies of games), so it was incredible seeing WSB spin fantastical tales of the marvelous future ahead for it.
Everyone else gets some intense FOMO that leads them to piss away their own money (you can't just buy options because options on hyper-volatile stocks price that in), and then a lot of people get burned. Everyone is running around talking about how everyone made millions from WSB tips or something, it's farce.
As is always the case, a tiny number of people benefit, and a huge number of people financed their return.
The whole story seems super dumb. And the SEC is likely paying very close attention.
Loads of people throughout this discussion have absolutely no clue what they're talking about. What a low information crowd this is.
As an aside, a site called "Gradient Descent", with a product or whatever called "descent ripple effect". I'm going to guess that most people upvoting this don't realize it's a cheesy button click animation.
Another way to put it is that no one does better than Apple at keeping their devices useful and valuable (easily demonstrated in resale values). Maybe Apple could do even better, but it's in a market where it is far and away the standout.
As an aside, people say "well look I can put some completely unsupported, random ROM on my old device!" is not a counterpoint. iPhones and iPads continue on as our kid's devices, resolve for a handsome resale price, etc. Competitor devices collect dust in a drawer. This is empirical truth.
No, they really didn't. At its height it accounted for barely 20%. It was dwarfed by coal, lignite and natural gas. It was never anything like France that went all in with nuclear.
Since then, German consumption has exploded, yet the non-renewables have stayed about static while virtually all new demand is met with renewables.
To counter the calculations of the IEA (who are a world more informed than cbmuser, I'm fairly sure), this guy conflates the entire historic mix of two very different countries, one with a long history of coal, natural gas and lignite (those decreasing as renewables enter the mix).
And we can look at each other's anecdotes with suspicion. But there's a paradox that when someone says "Oh it's only 1 minute per person" then my natural response is "why isn't that a status line they set in IM or something?" at whatever asynchronous time it suits them best in their workday. How could it possibly be the best way to communicate 60 seconds of information by making everyone break their flow and gather together. And if it's more than 1 minute, and you're getting into actual meat, well then there are even bigger issues afoot like an inappropriately large and inefficient audience.
If you're just stating exactly what everyone can see in JIRA or whatever product you use, then it's a waste of time.
Aside: In probably half those teams there were remote developers who'd have to call in. Boy, that added a whole new fun level where everyone does nothing while technical issues are sorted.
EDIT: After the flurry of downvotes by these scrum disciples, I can't even reply to the disingenuous reply to this that makes some astonishing projections, and again tries to moral high ground.
If you are on a team that derives value from scrums, you are probably on a shitty team.
Debating with the zealots of scrum land (who, like the guy below, will repeatedly tell you -- in between their evangelizing -- that they're not really zealots) is a Schrödinger's Cat of productivity, where not only does it take no time and impose no flow penalty, completely and fully detached with every inkling of software development knowledge industrywide, it also conveys everything to everyone and is all powerful.
As to scrum exposing cultural problems, maybe that's true, but in some cases scrums are a clumsy attempt to solve cultural problems (as I said in another comment, agile was the failure mode for orgs stumbling with "waterfall").
Terrible progress visibility? Let's have a scrum! No team member communications? Scrum will fix it! People sandbagging or not doing their work? Don't worry, Scrum will save the day!
On good teams we all know what each other is working on. We're all aware of the codebase. We see the commits. We are available when someone has a problem (and people know who is a good person to asynchronously ping when they have a problem in specific domains), and are open to the reality that everyone is imperfect and doesn't know everything. On good teams scrums serve absolutely no value, and are a redundant waste of time. On bad teams they are an attempt to bandage over all of the lack of those factors.
And I'm hardly alone in observing this being a common pattern.
Are you the only one attending or something?
Standups are initially scheduled for the start of the development day. But then people come in a little late, get that first minute call, have to attend to something that hiccupped, so soon enough the standup happens 30 minutes into the day, eventually an hour into the day.
So if you did get there on time, now you just spin your wheel waiting, because first you've got that obnoxious standup that's going to disrupt everything.
Now you get there and spend ten minutes waiting for everyone to assemble, and for the S.C.R.U.M.Master to pull Jira up on the overhead. Finally you get going and everyone has an essay about their herculean effort putting a button on a form, which absolutely no one is listening to. You have the manager (because really they're a garbage way of managing) interjecting and asking questions. You have someone say something dumb they're doing and everyone gets to stand there while two people who could have taken it offline have a conversation.
40 minutes later you go back to your desk.
Invariably the standup aficionados (almost universally shitty managers) will say "you're doing it wrong!", but what I just described is the standup reality virtually everywhere.
EDIT: Exactly as expected, I made the mistake of actually replying to people who questioned my comment, which means when some angry person comes along they get to downvote all of them. That aspect of HN is weak sauce.
Standups are a shitty, passive-aggressive way of managing. Managers who are too weak/incapable of simply monitoring progress, asking questions instead make this whole show under the assumption that everyone is checking on each other. 100% of the time this is the justification for standups. In many firms, "agile" is a failure mode for "waterfall".
GDP has barely taken a hit the world over. Trade is virtually unchanged. Hell, some indicators went positive though the pandemic.
I don't really think there was a "shutdown". Passenger car miles might have gone down, but I suspect deliveries and cargo went way up.
Yeah, I'm not feeling guilty about this, and I'll do it every time.
Note that the list isn't like a spam list or something where bad actors can just flag something and get them blacklisted. When you report to the safe browsing list it is actually verified, and when it's a fake bank/netflix/Amazon/etc login, it's pretty easy for them.
It detects blacklisted URLs in emails and sends warnings, retroactively given that sites are caught some indeterminate time after they might have been communicated (flagging if you have interacted with the email and thus might have been compromised). It seems like it was perfectly reliable.
That isn't damning at all, and it should embarrass you that you cited that, seemingly confused about the reason.
"Im not sure exactly what you are disputing"
I'm saying that we have zero reason to believe you (but reasons to not believe you given that you're redacting things that don't need to be redacted). People caught in the nets of things like this -- through their malice, carelessness, incompetence, etc -- always claim innocence.
As an aside, your commentary about Google alerting to phishing emails seems like you're misunderstanding and trying to use this to further your "it's all random!" claims. They aren't flagging it because of the sender, but instead because the contents included a URL on the blacklist. Google re-scans and when they find URLs that are now blacklisted, they warn about Phishing. This isn't new and they've done it for years, and it seems pretty obvious and logical.
e.g. "That email you got a while back that claimed it's from the Netflix billing problem website is actually phishing. If you gave them details, that's a problem".
"Protecting end users from nothing at all (like I said, there is no offending URL) is not more important than making sure Google doesn't literally gatekeep the entire Internet"
This system protects countless people from malware and phishing daily. I have no reason to believe your particular claims about this (though I'm skeptical given that you are blocking details that would allow others -- such as Google -- to repudiate your claims. Why block the subdomain? If it hosts static resources, what's the concern?).
How sites end up on the block list-
-they host malware, either intentionally or because they were hacked.
-they host a phishing site, either intentionally or because they were hacked.
Protecting users is a monumentally more critical task than your concerns.
And this system is incredibly valuable. When I get a text to a phishing site, I immediately report it to the safe browsing list. I also notify the nameserver, the hosting agent, and if applicable the SSL cert provider. Bit.ly if in the chain, though they never do anything [fun fact, even -- phishers and malware authors love putting bit.ly in the chain because they're paying subscribers, and as domains are taken down they can just change the destination. Bit.ly exists on the backs of scumbags, and itself should be on the safe browsing exclusion list]
Usually the safe browsing list addition happens within an hour, saving many people from being exploited. The nameserver and host -- DAYS. Namecheap takes an eternity to do anything, even for outrageously blatant phishing sites. GoDaddy - an eternity. SSL providers seem to act quickly, but propagation delays makes that negligible.
EDIT: 11 days ago I reported the scn- prefixed netflix.com to all of the above. This is a blatant phishing site, and was mass texted to Canadians. It was blacklisted by safe browsing within an hour, likely saving a lot of people grief.
Namecheap, who I informed by their email and by their garbage ticket system, still host the nameserver and physical hosting for this site. 11 days later. Grossly negligent behavior, and there needs to be some window of responsiveness because these players are just grotesque at this point.
There is positively nothing "secret" about this.
A huge number of models are "small". I'm currently training game units for autonomous behaviors. The M1 is massively oversized for my need.
Saying "Oh look, GPT-3" just stupidifies the conversation, and is classic dismissive nonsense.
And given that they were explicitly breaking an app store rule, which they are now being held to: Yeah, they were getting away with something. I mean, this is patently obvious.
I, on the other hand, have taken (thus far) about 15 downvotes. And I regret none of them given that I'm absolutely right, and this is yet another stupid torch mob about nonsense.
The guy is going to end up changing the name (and icon) of his project. Life moves on. Story at 11.
Yeah, there isn't a lot of ambiguity here. This was absolutely getting away with it.
A lot of noise and bluster in here, but I'd peg the probability that Apple stays firm at 100%.
Maybe it's an off day for him and he just doesn't care. Maybe he was confused about the speed limit on that stretch. Maybe he is waiting for a bigger fish. Maybe he likes my car (or skin) color and decided to look the other way. Regardless, I got away with speeding.
If I then at some future date pointed to that as legalizing my speeding for all time, that would be ignorant nonsense. Yet we see this exactly this sort of childish argument in all realms: Some guy deducts something unlawful for years and then one day the tax man says "Uh no...that isn't allowed", and they point to their prior years as if that makes it suddenly lawful. That getting away with it before grandfathers it in or something.
Some random Apple employee writing a story linked it (or a tax employee accepting a tax return, or a cop giving a pass to speeding), therefore it is officially sanctioned for all time. Give me a break. That isn't how any of this works.
But it makes for a lot of crybaby stories.
This is childish, nonsensical argumentation. The app has always been in contravention of the rules of the app store.
This isn't going to be popular, however getting away with something for a period of time is not the same as being approved/sanctioned/etc. In the petition the author claimed that the app "spontaneously began violating" one of the guidelines, when clearly it has violated it all along. Yet that disingenuous angle is used constantly when people get away with something for a while and suddenly aren't.
As an aside, it's interesting that anyone thinks that making a big noise about this will cause Apple to revert their stance (as app using a pill as their icon, naming it after a controlled substance, and using narrative like "the most awesome keep-awake"). That is improbable. It seems much more likely that Apple will be very certain this app is renamed, and the narrative changed.
These do emerge.