lynndotpy

I think "CYA" is maybe a misleading or overflowery term.

In the idealized world, the legal system is meant to provide an accessible alternative to violence for reconciling disputes, but it's increasingly wielded as an impossibly kafkaesque system meant to maintain corporate power over individuals.

I think "CYA" is an overly-flowery term for the reality that they're blocking every avenue for legal recourse, while a variety of other avenues still exist for which adding friction requires the maintenance of expensive and ongoing costs (owning multiple residences, hiring security, etc.)

(To be clear, I am advocating for a more accessible and level legal system, not for UHC-style violence.)

Yes, but the t looks like a c, making it read like a "slop" of a sexual bodily fluid.

Yep, I'm in America. Would be strange if it differed by locale.

Huh, my experience was the opposite. I don't think Apple undid my setting with iOS 18.7.7, but they did with iOS 18.7.8.

They caved, but they're still pulling out new tactics to trick users into installing iOS 26.

The new iOS 18 update will _also_ toggle Automatic Updates back on. I had it happen just now on my 13 Mini against my will. I had to go back into settings and very carefully navigate to disable automatic updates.

Very serious vulns were being exploited in the wild, I think that's what forced their hand. I don't think Apple ever had a discrepancy like the one with iOS 18.7.3 through .6 being held back.

For those on iOS 18, beware that the update to iOS 18.7.8 will toggle Automatic Updates back on. Make sure to switch it back off so you don't wake up to a nasty surprise when iOS 26 is non-consensually forced onto your iPhone.

Heads up. They have released an iOS 18 update (good!) but, and please bear the caps:

UPDATING IOS WILL ENABLE AUTOMATIC UPDATES TO IOS 26.

(Bad!) This is a new shady tactic they're using trying to get iOS 18 users to install iOS 26.

As GP noted, there are multiple factors here. They're not arguing funding is the only factor.

Game developers benefit tremendously from streams where they get to see peoples webcams _and_ screens as they use their software.

This would be _absolutely insane_ telemetry to request from a user for any other piece of software, but it would be fantastically useful in identifying where people get frustrated and why.

That said, I do not trust Microsoft with any telemetry, I am not invested in helping them improve their product, and I am happy not to rely on the GitHub CLI.

Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of people in the more toxic parts of Apple's fanbase decrying USB-C for appearing too fragile, for being forced on them, for having a confusing set of standards (that last one is a fair point).

But I think, among Apple fans, USB-C has generally been a point of 'pride' for the past decade. Designed by Apple, put in a laptop first by Apple, best $10 USB-C-to-3.5mm DAC by Apple, etc.

Whether correct or not, I think Apple fans anticipate more severe tradeoff ramifications with a replacable battery. I think they're different things. (I don't think it's impossible though- the Fairphone has IP 55, I bet Apple can improve on that).

For as much flack Microsoft gets today, they have some of the best people writing about low-level computing. James Mickens writings managed to make me literally laugh-out-loud on these subjects. Chen described him best as "the funniest man in Microsoft Research" ( https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20131224-00/?p=22... )

It's kind of mind boggling to me that they have a tight chassis, AND it meets their buildable/ugpradeable/repairable goals, AND their backwards compatibility is reaching back five years now.

I think a number of people would have expected these to eventually require a trade-off. Especially coming from pc-building land, where we see new non-backwards-compatible CPU and RAM sockets every 6 or so years.

There's a version of this where Frame.work said, "Design tradeoffs mean the 13 Pro is a new platform that is largely not backwards compatible, but don't worry, the 13 series will still get 5+ years of support and parts" and everyone goes "Aw, well, I guess that's reasonable."

I really want to emphasize that it's looking like Framework is creating a laptop with _better_ backwards compatibility and build-ability than a desktop PC.

All this is to say that this is very very impressive!

In my experience, iOS only misses keys during the time the keyboard is loading (which can be over a second- crazy!)

But I often have input lags where I will press several keys, and then a period of time (which can be multiple seconds) will pass before my taps are registered.

The 14 Pro Max launched less than four years ago, and should not be slower than an Android which launched a decade prior.

For Windows, my last experience on a personal install was Windows 10 and that was yeeeaaars ago, so... Grain of salt :)

It's not the default, but IIRC Windows could be configured to have zero animations, and I found it to be quite responsive as such.

I'm not talking about the speed of opening programs, but more of the speed of every-second interactions: Unfolding a folder (or other interactions within a program with keyboard or mouse), alt-tabbing across windows, moving between desktops, etc. At least on Windows, I saw far fewer IO-blocking animations than I have on MacOS.

You're right about the "something starts to happen": Apple hides delays behind sigmoidal animations throughout much of their OS. For those who aren't aware of the trick, the delay between the start of the animation and the tail where it starts appears to just be an animation that started on the interaction.

As others have noted, the "Reduce Motion" doesn't fix anything (neither does Reduce Transparency).

These terminal commands don't fix the problem- there are still lengthy animations, e.g. when swapping desktops or opening folders. These are tasks I sometimes do multiple times per second on Linux.

The thing where Linux (and Android, and Windows at least circa 2023) blows Apple out of the water is in UI latency. The built-in animations on Apple's software are sometimes hundreds of times slower than on their competitors, in ways which can't be accounted for.

Improving interface response times is the single best thing Apple can do to improve their UX. I don't need an interface which throbs, wiggles, jiggles, shines, and refracts, I need an interface that's snappy and fast.

As far as I know, MacOS is the _only_ desktop OS with this problem. The only way to fix this problem on MacOS is to do everything inside a virtual machine running anything but MacOS.

> If you stood on the street corner and asked every passerby what they would change about their phone, I think you would be there all day before someone said "I wish I could replace the battery".

I have experience saying the exact opposite, although this was a few years ago.

OnePlus set up a marketing booth on my campus in 2018 or 2019 or so, and they did exactly this, with a large sign asking people what they want out of a phone. They asked passerbys what they want out of a phone, and they let people put their requests on a board.

When I put my request up, I wasn't the first one to request replaceable batteries and a headphone jack. (At the time, OnePlus had removed the jack from their most recent phone, after advertising their previous phone in comparison to Apple's jackless phone).

At the time of this writing, the prevailing thinking with "artificial intelligence" was that we'd encode every Fact we know and every rule of Logic, and from there, the computer would make new discoveries. Todays AI researchers would call this "symbolic" AI, compared to the "neural" AI powering LLMs. They're like two different worlds.

LLMs are just generating text, they don't know anything. They can't assess whether there is enough data for an answer. When you add a follow up prompt "This is wrong, why did you lie?" only then is it able to generate text, "I was wrong, I'm sorry," and so forth.

When the change makes something worse all around, then that change should not be favored.

I think it's worth speaking plainly and specifically about this.

The implied and speculated motivation is that Bob, and the other Flock employees watching people without their consent, is voyeurism. That means to look at people in otherwise-private places and in various states of undress, for sexual gratification. It is not uncommon for someone who believes nobody is looking to even adjust their clothes on their body, briefly exposing genitals, nipples, etc.

This is very concerning, but even more so because this includes children.

The article is clearly generated text, but it's also just low quality writing.

If the author _were_ aware of specifics, they could have just written the article. A list of bullet points would be better.

It's almost as if they made the article Worse, on Purpose.

It's not just a widespread pattern –––––––––––––––– it's a sign of things to come.

To start with, "visibly insane" is a ludicrous idea.

Further, yes, you can get a license despite being "visibly insane". Some people consider it insane to believe in a deity, to not to, to smoke cigarettes, to have dyed hair, to have an electric car, to have a lime car, to own a Nissan, etc. During my test, the tester said nobody should drive if they hadn't gotten 10 hours of sleep, and I admitted I had only had six or seven. I still got my license.

Interpreted generously, maybe some small percentage of "insane people" are visibly so. Even then, looking at someone is not a proof of a lack of sanity.

Sanity isn't a thing you can test for, it's definitely not something the government should test for.

To make the implied question explicit: How do you envision positively testing for sanity? How would you feel if this test were implemented in 1940, 1900, 1860, 1820, etc? Would your feelings about that differ by the inclination of the politicians in power?

That is different than the proposed test for sanity.

I'm not in the interest of rehashing decades of the same arguments about guns in society on HackerNews, and per Poe's law, I can't actually tell if you're sincere or not. Assuming you are, it bears summary:

You basically have it with "it reduces the blast radius". Guns are a great tool for damaging soft tissue to the point of death. Gun control advocates believe, with less access to guns, people will kill less.

It is also worth adding that most gun deaths in thbe US are from suicides. Means reduction is well-understood as a way to decrease suicides.

> So what's next, lock down the air, radio, roads, internet, water, food supply chains because these are all attack vectors?

We don't need to get stuck in a hypothetical, since we can look at other countries and see how they manage these public goods. Guns are unique in that they're exclusively for killing, and provide scant other value outside sport.

Notably, nowhere that had success in tighter gun regulation needed to censor 3D printing. This legislation is something 'both sides' of the gun debate should be able to get behind and oppose. There is very little potential benefit for the cause of "gun control", and very much potential harm.

> a proof of mental sanity

A "proof of mental sanity" would be a far more concerning overreach than 3D printer bans or gun bans, especially as we see things which are mandatory in a society become something tantamount to personhood. I don't really know how one would even envision implementing such a thing.

This is uncanny. Just yesterday, I was complaining about the state of photo editing software (Adobe and Google are no-gos, and Darkroom provided a thousand thorns). I wished that DaVinci had a photo editor, because I had similar pains about video editing that were resolved when I learned about DaVinci.

AND it runs on Linux!

It's not every night you make a wish and wake up to find out it has come true.

When I stopped using Windows, it was because it required so much constant upkeep and maintenance to stay usable. You had to stay on top of the latest tool that disables tracking, things like Cortana you'd want to remove, the latest toggles you have to disable, what toggles revert themselves when you update. These all exist behind different shifting UI toggles which are not accessibly automatable. And all the while, you have to hope your registry edits don't force you to a lengthy reinstall where you have to redo all of these.

I could be wrong, but as far as I know there's not one "Fix Windows 11" tool maintained to do all this for you.

"You have to toggle AI features off in Notepad, and they changed the name to Advanced Features now," is just another heaving brick on the pile.

> The list of affected projects includes, but is not limited to, Virtual Private Network (VPN) software WireGuard, on-the-fly encryption (OTFE) utility VeraCrypt, the MemTest86 Random Access Memory (RAM) testing and diagnosis tool, and the Windscribe VPN software.

This, on top of the recent mystery app updates pushed by Apple, has me concerned. So much of security relies on the assumption that, say, Apple, Google, or Microsoft can't be coerced into pushing an update that undermines the entire security model. The "Apple gets hit with a wrench attack" is more salient nowadays.

Hopefully this is nothing but I think it's worth being vigilant. But judging by Microsoft's response, it seems more likely to be an administrative error commensurate with the state of their company rather than something more nefarious.

> encrypted messaging apps like Signal and Telegram

Telegram less of an "encrypted messaging app" than Instagram was (which, until May 8th, has optional E2EE apps using the Signal protocol). It's simply incorrect to think of Telegram as an "encrypted messaging app" when the default use case is not E2EE.

> the mishandling being a part of a evil plot to strengthen the surveillance state and promote fascism

DOGE strengthened the surveillance state. It does not matter whether or not it's tied to a singular intentional plot.

> Mass surveillance was already a problem back in 2013

Yes, and mass surveillance was a problem even before 2013. We saw it greatly expand especially under the Bush administration under the guise of the "war on terror". As you noted, we haven't seen Obama or Biden reform to account for expansions of power that happened under the preceding administrations. (Hopefully we can get another Watergate style realignment!) So, you have to think about the world in systems thinking, and you have to think about how the state of things are changing over time.

Musk endorsed Signal in 2021, but since then he's denigrated it as "vulnerable", promoted Telegram (which, again, is not even in the same ballpark), blocked Signal for a period and banned users for posting them, and has promoted XChat (which stores keys and metadata serverside and which does not even have forward secrecy).

Musk is a proponent of surveillance and censorship, not the other way around.