strawberrypuree

How can you know when it's really "The Year of the Linux Desktop"? Whenever you don't need a "how to make it not suck" blog post to get it to run for normal users.

“Google Pay will never sell your data to third parties or share your transaction history with the rest of Google for targeting ads,” the company said.

From what I can tell, nothing in this statement actually precludes targeting ads based on spending. If it did, they would just say that. They only preclude selling the data or sharing it with the ads team. But that was never the model to start with! This is a sleight of hand by Google to cover up what they actually do: profile users and then offer that profiling to other companies in the form of a service.

To put it more explicitly, you can say “I’ll put your ad in front of 20 year olds with an interest in skateboarding” without selling user data or even sharing profile data with the ads team. You just simply get the ads and the target market and use the data to put the ad in front of them.

And doesn’t the fact that Google says they won’t do those things proof that they know their entire business model is super shady and wouldn’t be appreciated by users if they fully understood it?

A clever move. Apple essentially knee-capped the Epic claim that they’re in the same boat as small developers by putting a high cap on post-commission earnings ($1m sounds like a lot).

Why do you think so? The article comes to the opposite conclusion.

How can it be a “purely cynical PR piece” when there is an actual reduction in cost for developers?

In other words, what should Apple have done here? What is the right cut, and how did you come to that figure?

I find your perspective and interest in your genealogy fascinating, primarily because I don’t share it. Like, not one bit, and I’m not sure why. If I found out tomorrow that my parents weren’t actually my parents and I was actually adopted, I would have no interest in finding my “real” parents. I’m also totally uninterested in having children — it seems like something other people are much better suited for and I’m happy to be on the sidelines paying taxes or pitching in to a nephew’s college fund.

I’m also not interested in having my photos included in family histories, or indeed being remembered at all. Not in a bitter way, just in the same way that I’m not interested in which mushrooms grow in Botswana. It’s a thing that I think is perfectly reasonable to be interested in.

The fucked up thing is that you can’t opt out. Facebook is capturing the world around you and you can’t stop that. There’s no guarantee that the house you rent next year won’t have been mapped by Facebook. Every store you go to, every theater... it won’t be long until they won’t need you to opt in. There will be a tidy alistproducer2 shapes hole in their data, all ready to infer your movements...that is, of the people wearing them don’t capture you as part their distributed data collection.

This is not hyperbole. Facebook already lays claim to the behavioral data of non users, creating shadow profiles ready to materialize should you become a user. This an extension of that.

We are sleepwalking into a dystopia.

My husband and I took a road trip of 4,682 miles in a Tesla, with a dog. We stopped every 3 hours and charged for 30 minutes. It was not only possible, but easy, because those stops corresponded to lunch, coffee, dinner, and sleeping. The dog needed to be let out, I needed to stretch my legs, etc.

This take is stale. Some people will pay for less freedom on their machines and some developers will gladly take their money. That’s not force, that’s capitalism.

Well, luckily when you ban the sale of new things, it doesn't instantly take off the planet every used version of that thing. The average age of cars on the road is 11 years, meaning we have at least a quarter century from now to get our act together. The world looked a lot different in 1995, a quarter century before today.

It hasn't been that way for the past 8 months.

Going that slow on, say, 101 south of San Jose w/no traffic would get you honked at, flipped the bird, or worse.

>Sorry TC the reality is barely anyone but aging millennials are keeping 20k songs around in mp3 format.

And yet iTunes Match remains in service.

Call for the assassination of the President on your verified, highly followed Twitter account and, when the Secret Service calls you up, ask them if they really believe you were literally saying it or if, as adults you can realize you were being hyperbolic.

There are some things we don’t give the benefit of the doubt for. Murdering public officials is one of them.

This is a soft failure. If the computer didn't have access to the Internet, it would still open.

Not sure if you’re saying that’s cheap or expensive, but I am tempted to get <myfirstname>.audio just for this

>Were the OP's suggestions/observations really that outlandish?!

I wouldn't call them outlandish. I think there's merit in the ability to install whatever software you want. But I also think there's merit in making sure there's a robust, unfragmented market of apps that work with the last 6 years of iPhones, and restrictions that Apple has in place ensure that.

I think the Dev Store is a reasonable compromise to ensure that average users don't have to run AVG AntiVirus on their phones. That situation is absurdly anti-user.

>why is there no strict walled garden for Macs?

There is, and it's annoying: GateKeeper, which if I recall correctly requires you to basically outsmart your OS to install software using the GUI.

This is why I'm happy the iPad Pro is getting more desktop-like, hopefully bridging the gap between people who want a laptop to do weird stuff and people who want a device that will work no matter what you do to it.

I think I've come up with a reasonable solution for Apple to implement that MacOS style of openness: the iPhone Developer Edition. "Developer" is being used here as a byword for "power user", since "Pro" has been diluted.

The Developer Edition requires you to register for a now-free developer account. There's big friendly letters that say, "Welcome, developer! We know that you'll enjoy getting the most of your hardware and not clogging up our forums and support lines with complaints about things that are broken due to the unreviewed apps, because you're a developer, and you know how to fix things when they break. Here's your unwalled garden. Enjoy."

Then there can be that Dev Store where Advanced stuff goes, and if there's ever any hacks / vulnerabilities / bad stuff Apple can point to the Dev Edition and say "That's what they signed up for, but for normal folks the walled garden awaits."

iPhone Developer Edition and iPhone Customer Editions are identical in hardware. You can buy a Customer Edition and convert it to a Developer Edition phone by simply registering as a developer and signing away your right to bitch and moan if apps contain spam, porn, scams, or brick your device. iPhone Developer Edition can be turned back into a Customer edition through a setting, all ready to be sold.

> You want to incentivize future growth too

I would say that SF doesn’t want to incentivize future growth. That’s the source of the inequality, right?

Here's the English translation of Section 130: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...

Which might help explain what is considered hate speech. These discussions tend to devolve (as all good online discussions do) into the nuance and what-about's. It's the role of the courts to determine that, and it's an ever-evolving collection of legal precedent as a result.

>Except that you already agreed to this behaviour when you signed up.

This is victim blaming, and it legitimizes the heinous practice of putting onerous terms behind a click-through acceptance. Please stop.

(2018), please.

There’s a distinction between one-to-one messaging and one-to-many messaging that needs to be considered. But in general, Google doesn’t control the email protocol so I don’t see a problem with them refusing to send an email they deem objectionable.

This is why private email services and roll your own exist.

>Ex-migration will find SF strapped for taxes

Why do you think there won't be a crop of young people moving to SF now that it's cheaper?

>The company also argued shoppers were made aware of the activity through decals it had placed on shopping mall entry doors that referred to Cadillac Fairview's privacy policy.

Do what now? Physical spaces have privacy policies? We're really sleepwalking into a dystopia. If you don't like the privacy policy of your shopping mall, you're free to shop... online, where they get even more behavioral data on you. Yikes.

Much of the web is hosted on AWS. So, you have an invisible relationship with Amazon. Same with Facebook and their trackers, unless you block them.

Cambridge Analytica happened with an app hosted on Facebook. This is hosted on your browser. So it’s not exactly how Cambridge Analytica happened because the trust model is completely different.

That doesn’t solve the brand reputation problem. Some users don’t want to be on a site that has anything to do with controversial / unsavory content. Bars have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason not protected by law (race, etc.). Social media is the online equivalent of the watering hole; should not they be afforded the same right?

> Many smart TVs will connect automatically to any open wifi signal.

Which? So we can avoid. I don’t buy TVs often; the 2019 LG OLED I have required me to set up WiFi. Which of course I didn’t do, but it wasn’t forced.

> Many modern televisions will stop working altogether of they go too long without phoning home.

Same question as above. Would be good to get a list going. Maybe a shared doc of TVs to avoid.

How about in situations where the speech is likely to get them banned from a country, or lose advertisers, or generally turn away users because of its association with speech that it doesn't like? Should businesses be forced to accommodate speech that threatens their livelihoods?