My extreme political opinion is that no one (including corporations) should be allowed to own more than one property in which they do not reside.
1,802 karma · joined July 14, 2016
It was an open agreement to avoid misleading marketing that would have (presumably) caused a "race to the bottom".
With that said, it obviously is not meaningless at a technical level because without the commit there is nothing to push or merge. On top of that, at a non-technical level it can be extremely helpful to record some plain-english prose to describe why you are changing something. If you find yourself doing that too often you need to narrow your definition of what constitutes a "change" and/or be more discerning about what you work on simultaneously.
Out of curiosity, if you do not use git, what do you use for version control and change-management?
The bane of every project is understanding what you actually need to do
For example, it is entirely possible that the "right foundation" for your proposed scenario is: Hook one end up to a lightswitch, the other to a light bulb, hire two operators trained in morse code. Then once the 10 bytes are sent write them their cheques and shut it down.
The labor cost for replacing parts on a car isn't just another ballpark. It's another planet.
Obviously if you want to replace every part of the phone it is going to cost more altogether than a new phone. No reasonable person would argue that. And of course there are limits. The screen and mainboard are by far the most complex parts. The frame is trivial by comparison.
The problem is that there is effectively no real aftermarket for parts and repairs. Apple all but refuses to sell parts and makes using third party parts as onerous as possible.
They have been able to get away with it so far by riding the wave of quickly advancing mobile technology. But as next year's phone starts to look less and less different from last years phone, people are going to start to get serious about repairability and Apple is going to be forced to make some changes.
Obviously the dealerships are typically more expensive but that is from marking up parts and labor not from trying to pressure you into buying a new car. If Ford had it the way Apple does brakes would be built in to the transmission, last for 60,000 miles, and be priced at $25,000 to repair.
My specific complaint about my 12 mini is that it needs a new frame, back glass, camera, and battery. $89 dollars is obviously unrealistic for those parts. And, like you say, phones have fewer parts that make up a larger portion of the total cost for the product. Unlike with a car, you can actually swap everything into a new frame pretty easily.
The metaphor is not literal.
> Making knockoff components using Apple's logo and such is not the same thing
I think I was misremembering the lawsuit you are probably thinking of.
> Where, exactly, is this message on an iPhone
Again, the metaphor comparing iphones to cars is not literal.
Whoops! I guess you got me!
After all it really is actually super easy to buy new parts for Apple products either from Apple themselves or the thriving third-party market!
And on top of that, once your local repair shop has the parts, they are super easy to install.
Surely my damaged iphone mini 12 will be easily repaired at a reasonable price by the skilled technicians at the Genius Bar who have parts in stock and tools ready to go. It would be absolutely wild if their price for that service was based on the price of the latest iphone rather than the cost of parts and labor for the actual service. But certainly they wouldn't be able to get away with that due to, as we agreed earlier, the thriving market for third party parts and repair.
If that 10 year old car was designed with a non-standard shape battery, it would get a lower repairablity score. If additionally the OEM sued anyone who made batteries in that shape it would get an even lower repairability score. If on top of that the car was designed to turn on the check engine light if its battery was made by anyone other than the OEM then it would get an even lower score.
And that's pretty much my point. 2FA? Password Resets? Account Activation? Updating Email Address? No thanks. I would rather not have to deal with any of that. I literally just need a unique identifier to associate with your data and preferences.
> You are part of a federal agency or a state, local, or territory government
I'm talking about a more generic service that any random industry system or individual can use. The way many websites use Google's OAuth without using really using Google's APIs. Things that just want someone else (Google) to handle asking for and authenticating a name/password.
I'm saying we need the digital equivalent of "show me your driver's license".
Authentication should not need to be re-implemented by every single organization. We should have official auth servers so that FlyCASS doesn't need to worry about identity management and can instead just hand that off to id.texas.gov (or whatever state they operate from) the same way most single-use tool websites use Google's login.
This depends almost entirely on the type of comedy. Things like reference, satire, or shock are obviously dependent on the specific context of time in which they were made and of course become less meaningful as times change.
But comedy is not inherently less "timeless" than any other art. Who's on First is genuinely still funny almost a century later.
The little bits of surviving ancient comedy may seem trite but being simple does not make the jokes less "timeless".
This is the key.
I'm not saying Google couldn't be better. But if it were possible to build a better index of the Internet, Google would do it.
Spam garbage overrunning the web is the underlying issue.
It depends instead on the overall health of the Internet.
We are moving away from open commerce and into walled gardens. Once Google makes deals similar to their Reddit deal with Meta and Bytedance, it's going to become basically impossible for an upstart search engine to index anything competitively.
Every company's dream: Free labor and captive audiences.
The same cannot be said for medical records.
Microsoft controls this entire process. They could easily send copies back to "the mothership" like they probably already do with the processed results.
> It seems like the actual issue people have is that they don't trust Microsoft or they don't trust the government/people/everyone.
Whether or not this invasion of privacy is cause for concern depends on your level of trust. But it is still a privacy issue.