ntsplnkv2

That has little to do with personal productivity and more to do with technological advances.

It doesn't matter how much you "side hustle." that isn't going to invent nuclear power or discover AC current.

If you want to create anecdotes to prove a point I won't waste my time. The problem is far, far worse on Play and Android.

Sure it is - because Apps are curated, you can charge more for them. If there are free alternatives available everywhere, people will be less likely to pay.

> In this case, opening up the market to competition might be beneficial to existing App Store developers.

Only true if the 50% revenue increase disappears (Which is likely with a flood of free apps). Not only that, but more free apps = more privacy violations.

> App Store does help.....

So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem? There is no demonstrable harm. The small apps got a cut on the fee earlier this year. Now it's just megacorps trying to get as much of the pie as they can, in a way that hurts consumers.

Also allowing 3rd party applications to control critical features is a privacy/security issue I haven't seen addressed.

This is not accurate. I never "buy" a license explicitly. I buy the phone explicitly.

I can't "buy" iOS and put it on any phone. The phone and software are inextricably linked. It is one product.

> The App Store is a service provided by Apple that you should have a choice to use or not. The Apple Tax is what you're 'buying' from Apple when using the App Store service.

You can extend this to any level. This is like complaining "I don't want to use Amazon to buy things on Amazon.com"

Ahh so harm now is spending any money. I was harmed by my grocery store for charging me 1.50 for milk!

30% is more than fair. People spend more money on the App Store than competitors. Developers want access to that. it shouldn't be free.

The policies are more than fair.

People on HN get mad when others make money, but they never get mad when they want to make money too.

> You can have a properly curated store with 10% fees, for example. And you can block malware without blocking alternative web browsers or game streaming apps.

It becomes much more difficult and time consuming, and why 10%? The service is unbelievable - it provides great access to a platform and its high spending users. That is worth more than 10%.

This is short-sighted.

The App Store is good because it is closed and curated. That's a main driver of the product experience. Removing the App Store irrecoverably damages the iPhone - a curated, non-malware infested, high quality phone with a consistent experience.

I have yet to see any argument how the App Store harms consumers. It helps developers make more money (Play Store revenue is half that of the App store's apps), it helps consumers stay protected from malware infested applications and is easy to use.

Where, exactly, is the harm? Now Epic with their gambling games will be able to rip off kids even more in their own store? Fantastic.

You make that choice when you buy the phone.

You are not buying an iPhone and the software separately. It is one product. The App Store is the product.

That's because Apple's app store has better quality apps due to curation. The minute iPhones are opened up, the value of the App Store will tank considerably, and many devs on here will be up in arms, complaining about all the flood of free apps that have destroyed their market.

The fact is the App Store helps everyone. It curates apps for most people, it helps developers make more money (as you said, double the revenue, well worth the 1/3 cut, that no longer applies to small apps), and it helps Apple innovate on their hardware product.

My point was that eventually the anti-science policymakers will eventually lose out. Societies that value technology and science will win in the end - they will have economic advantages and advantages in war.

> It matters kind of a lot whether the winner is a liberal democracy with free speech and civil liberties or a totalitarian communist dictatorship.

This is irrelevant to the conversation, but yes that is why we spend trillions on defense technology, so that if it comes to blows we don't lose out.

Fine but this isn't evidence that lockdowns don't work, they clearly do work, it's just that in many places people put their freedom above other people's chance of getting sick and dying in Covid. If it was a higher risk of death I think that calculus would change.

This doesn't work because this assumes no learning takes place.

As you can see we now have vaccines - it would not have been a few years of lockdowns.

Japan has a far different culture than the US, people wear masks in normal times there.

And Sweden wasn't exactly a success, and has done far worse than their nordic neighbors, say, Norway. The numbers do not lie here.

Belarus had a very effective plan - they tested far earlier and more often, and have far more hospital beds per person.

Straight up country comparison is just a fool's game. We will have to learn from this as best we can - what worked, what didn't work, where, and why. If everyone wore masks properly, was lockdown necessary? We need time to study and find answers.

It won't matter.

Eventually the governments who support technology will win - either via war or economic advantage.

Reading cutting edge papers is not something the layman can do, it's a waste of time.

This is why we have things like the CDC offer guidelines, taking into account the changes and growth in our knowledge base. Knowledge is collected and verified over time and eventually becomes distilled in easy to understand ways to the public.

I can't remember a single person I've watched on youtube educationally. I hate it - it's too easy to get distracted. When I'm in class, I can focus. On my computer I'll end up somewhere else and right quick.

> But there is no reason for a teacher to explain something when Khan academy has already done it and often done it far better.

Citation is needed here. I'm not buying that Khan Academy has better outcomes just because this is HN and the internet is cool.

Where is the evidence that Khan Academy is better?

This 100%. Don't waste time on linkedin. Online networking? Sounds like BS, sounds like another self help book, or some dumb TedX talk that says you aren't successful because you cross your legs when you sit. It's all nonsense and BS.

There's a sector of society that is conned into believing the white collar koolaid and LinkedIn is the social network for that. Anyone who's really doing anything doesn't spend time there, ime.

> Does anybody actually see linkedIn as this?

Definitely not. No one I know uses LinkedIn except when they are looking for a new job.

The ones I've found who are using it a lot are either: paid to, or desperate for work and try to fluff up and BS their way into a job.

The average length of time people own cars is 6 years. Sure, rich people lease every 3, but most people aren't rich. It's still an unfair comparison imo.

> Soon all phones will offer basically same functionality with only minor differences. After some point there will be no more gains from more camera or screen pixels, more cores, more gigabytes of storage. The only reason to buy a new phone will be if the old one broke or if you feel to switch to a new phone to follow trends.

We have essentially been at this point for a few years now. Most people I know who don't have to have the latest and greatest don't want to upgrade - but are forced to because of performance degradation, un-repairability, and bad faith phone contracts.

I don't think this is a valid argument. People do not "upgrade their cars" by buying a different looking one every year - rather, when they buy a new car, looks matter then.

> Same with wristwatches, or glasses, or a host of other things we use every day.

It's hard to consider watches a tool these days and both of these examples are fashion related. Most people do not wear glasses by choice.

It stands to reason that most papers will not be impressive, so even if the filter is biased it likely has some sort of value.

It's always a balancing act. Become too restrictive and good ideas could get snuffed out, but too open and it's just a giant cluster of bad ideas and too much noise.

It seems likely that Russia and China will increase their naval capacity (Russia especially as the arctic melts fully due to global warming.) It makes sense to have this technology.

The tone is baseline. You're objecting because you "feel bad about it." We rich westerners like to self loath a lot - a lot of loathing, little action. Of course we all "feel bad" about it. But half the posts in this thread are more "I don't want to tip this server whom I love very much and we need oh so desperately!" Pretty contradictory.

Everyone cares for everyone else, until it's their pocketbook. That's why it's easy to say "raise the minimum wage!", it's just the new "pass the back." No skin off the rich SV developers back, as he types on his $1100 iPhone made with slave labor in china, in his slave labor clothes, etc.

The argument about "would I do this job" is the wrong argument. The argument is, CAN I do this job. And yes I can, and yes, most people can. Most people can not be developers. So why bother with the worthless platitude.

Also to - it is a strawman to suggest I don't want a world without servers. I just suggested that over-subsidizing them is bad for society, as a whole.

> No, it's "inherently low value" because most people can do it, and there will always be people desperate enough to do it.

AKA, an easy job. A job that most people can do.

> The business and customer are getting an excellent deal because the model is anti-competitive....

No, they get an excellent deal because they're easy jobs that anyone can do. If being a waiter was like being a mechanic, they'd get paid more. Pretty basic.

> These people are giving up their entire lives basically. All you have is time on this earth, and they're asked to give all of that for nothing, so you can live in the lap of luxury. I don't want to live in a world without bartenders and servers. I consider their work valuable, and think they deserve fair pay.

I hear you - but raising the minimum wage hurts small restaurants a lot. And don't pretend like it doesn't. It will. They'll feel it instantly, and many will fail because of it. It's better to redistribute wealth in other ways. This drastic min. wage hike will just end up being a regressive tax on the poor.

Why?

You're asking a farmer to be subsidized by everyone else, but you're not saying why we should. Because economically, it's great that the farmer can have a living - not so great for the poor family that can't afford his overpriced produce.

I won't doubt your experience. I'm sure it has happened, but I've been in some pretty high up areas as well.

> My take is while not always the case, the higher level the committee approving the consulting spend (because even that choice/decision is diffused), the more frequently this is involved.

It sounds this has more to do with the clout of the individual than it does "oh well mckinsey said this."

> what I call “decision insurance” (“but our consultants confirmed this made sense!”) so decision accountability is laundered, everything makes much more sense.

I hear this all the time but it sounds like an urban myth.

I highly doubt someone is not getting fired because the consultants they hired fucked up. They're still responsible for the business. I think consultants can help more with the "we need to do X, Y, Z" with consultant's report backing it up.

So is picking fruits and vegetables. There is endless labor supply. If one doesn't work out you find another. It doesn't matter how hard people in the business think it is - it requires no credentials or education and there is no bar. That's just reality - I feel for people who have to work in that industry, but that's just life.

Your second argument is just, not a real argument. It ignores why the minimum wage could be raised. Subsidies work when other places of the economy can provide said subsidy. When the rest of the economy starts to suffer the subsidy can no longer be provided and the economy collapses - the USSR is a great example. The economy couldn't sustain itself, it collapsed. Now you want to raise the minimum wage, whenever the fed is pumping billions into the economy. The value of the dollar would plummet and inflation would go out of control.

> Right now, the taxpayers are subsidizing jobs anyway: 70% (!!!) of SNAP/food stamps or Medicaid recipients work full time, with McDonald's and Walmart being in top spots (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...). These companies could also pay their workers a living wage and provide them with medical insurance and still be profitable!

The reason this works is because cheap foreign labor/goods can subsidize walmart paying potential higher wages. If, globally, this minimum wage was mandated, walmart would not be able to afford it, no.

This doesn't work.

Anyone can be a waitress or waiter. The labor is inherently low value because it's an easy job. Raising the minimum wage will just subsidize jobs that have less actual value and it will be a net loss to society.

UBI could work because it redistributes the overly concentrated wealth gained from technology from the ultra rich across society. But raising the minimum wage does not.