wernercd

Never give up, Never surrender.

You will face obstacles, problems, bugs, disbelievers, etc. The only way to succeed it to keep at it. You won't believe you can do it... until you do it.

One step at a time. Next thing? It's ten years later and your a senior developer who everyone looks up too.

We have comcast and finally removed "tv" because the pricing changed from internet+tv = internet prices... to internet + tv = more.

The answer? was a streaming box. I expect to see a monthly rental fee for the streaming box...

and people were free to choose other operating systems when MS was found to be abusing their "monopoly".

Just because there are some other options... doesn't negate the fact that Apple is using monopolistic and anti-competitive tactics to limit consumer choice and business options.

There's zero reason why Epic should be force to pay Apple a 30% cut of all income when Epic has the resources and talent to do so.

Zero reason... other than mafia tactics.

Maybe... or they are using metrics from above as drivers.

To create and monitor Jira ticket counts, there has the be Jira tickets for management to pay attention to and compare against other employees.

Maybe the employee is gaming the numbers... but there has to be a game to play - and this no different than basing performance reviews on bugs solved or LOC numbers.

management is probably looking at those numbers? Going to be people who change their focus to reflect that attention from above.

"for free" and yet Apple will still make a profit due to physical phone sales, $99/year fees, etc. To imply that they aren't profitable outside of the 30% cut is laughable. Plenty of companies "research, develop, provide opportunities" that can't and don't resort to monopolistic and territorialistic practices to block competition.

There's no reason that EA can't accept payments outside of the Apple store other than monopolistic protectionism. "research and development" of something 100s of other companies can and do is a weak excuse - and one easily picked apart with relevant examples.

Your "hope" is tactic admission that there is no alternative and admission that Apple is willing to limit choice on their platform. "But Android" doesn't challenge the idea... it simply proves you can't defend Apple.

"I Buy apple" and others buy Apple while still wanting choice within that ecosystem of hardware. Why don't YOU get that through YOUR thick skull? You aren't the only customer and other people deserve the choice - which is why regulations exist to break up monopolies.

Thanks for, basically, admitting that I'm right and that the Don is willing to break kneecaps to keep control of their fiefdom.

So what alternatives are there to the Apple Store on Apple Devices? Can you point me to an alternative store that I can create, upload, sell and purchase games from that isn't the Apple store?

I'll gladly buy some games from the alternative store... because I love competition - unlike the Mafia.

If this was a Microsoft phone and Microsoft controlled the market share Apple does? people would be stampeding to force Microsoft to allow competing stores (or browsers, default email applications, etc) on them because anti-competitive behavior.

Yet Apple is "magical" and gets a pass for not allowing competition on "their" devices.

Even Google allows "sideloading".

The difference is plenty of companies can make storefronts - look at Steam vs GOG and all the other options for gaming on Windows.

You act like companies wouldn't produce viable alternatives given the opportunity... and you act like Steam isn't better because of the competition.

Apple is putting forced restrictions on their platform because they want to squeeze everyone who comes through their doors. Apple acts like they are the only ones who can create a "brand, real-estate, parking lots, etc" when in reality, it can be done a lot better by any number of other companies - the only reason they can charge 30% is because of artificial restrictions put in place so... they can charge 30%.

Walmart doesn't want Target next door... because then they'll have to actually innovate to keep their customers.

"It's not like the mafia is forcing you to open a business in Chicago. you don't like it? You can move elsewhere. People move to Chicago because it's highly profitable."

Pretending this doesn't have deep parallels to the mafia is childish. Keep pretending and we'll have Tony break your kneecaps.

There are plenty of parallels between Apple and the Mafia. Just ask Epic, who's kneecaps were busted for not paying the Don his share.

> aggressive consumer protection stance

Aggressive Protection? Sounds like the Mafia. Protection, paid for by you whether you want it or not. Pay the 30% or the mafia's going to break your kneecaps.

it's also stifling innovation to be restricted to one store front. Imagine if all you had was Walmart, Target and KMart (iPhone, Android and Windows). "you can't build a new store because of all the R&D Walmart has put into their stores".

You act like all the R&D isn't paid for with phone sales and development kits ($99/year).

If you want to restrict the market? The price of that restriction should be regulation.

The crux is you have to have experience to get experience.

I took the first job I could get as a programmer in 2010 at the first place that would accept me... making 21k right after getting my 2 year degree. I now work for a major bank as a Senior Programmer with 10+ years of experience.

If you can afford getting paid under market (minimum wage job you're taking? sounds like thats a yes)? Getting that first job can be worth it in the long run.

Put out a hundred applications and expect 2 interviews. Success is consistency and expectations that you'll have to work that much harder to get that first job.

I would. Because I don't talk down to people or change my speech patterns around people.

Unlike, say, those who "champion" people and then speak down to them.

https://www.inquirer.com/columnists/yale-study-white-liberal...

I prefer to talk to people as if they aren't handicapped (or less because they are POC) and can handle regular words.

crying about a word is reactionary... especially when you are getting offended for other people who haven't asked for your help.

The article doesn't mention current mining methods (that I remember). Just "There aren't a lot of scandium importers and miners, and the few that exist charge a premium.".

Not sure how "democrat" is an option... it's an American political party.

Unless you mean DS: "democratic socialism" - which is still socialism. Look at the Green New Deal where DS wants to go - control of industry "for the people" by massive expansion of government into various industries.

While you may have a point about the article being American focused, the fact remains that the middle class is expanding and the lower/peasant class is shrinking globally - all boats are rising due to "evil capitalism" and that horrible capitalism, despite being the worst idea ever... is still better than the alternatives that have presented. It's global success compared to the global failure of other "better" ideas is self evident at this point.

Socialism is the perfect theory... until it meets reality... and other setups are in the same boat: Better than capitalism until you look at real world results.

Need to fight cronyism? corporatism? Monopolies with reasonable government controls? Sure... I'm not a PURE capitalism person - My thoughts are based on reality where restrictions keep things reasonable (like restrictions on free speech and owning guns).

> aren't consistent

Those idea's aren't opposing and aren't the brunt of my point.

"Free Education" causes an increase in cost? Self evident. No market feedback and an increase in demand? Massive cost increased. And removing the "free education" (not really free) results in increased funding (more money from individuals than from a single government program) doesn't negate the first point. So your "they aren't consistent" example doesn't in any way shape or form contain two opposing points - they are actually complementary points. Government control of markets make them more expensive and opening markets leads to more money in the market? complementary ideas that feed each other.

And, as I said, those are tangential points to my main idea: "Free education" isn't free and the thought that it doesn't come with it's own shortfalls, issues and complications is short sighted.

> less sports and focus on jobs

Again, tangential ideas but that's largely because those schools don't have freedom as extensions of Big Government.

I'm okay with less time in sports and more focus on functional educations - but those do come at the cost of freedom on the part of schools AND students and lower capacity, etc.

These ARE complicated topics and your points aren't 100% wrong or pointless... but again - my main point is that free isn't free and for the few bonus's that are lauded ("free"), it's amazing that the shortcomings and limitations somehow get left out of the conversation.

"What's stopping you" It's a 3 day weekend?

and you also pay a MASSIVE amount more in taxes and your education is more controlled with shortfalls and limitations.

https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/free-college-w...

https://www.aei.org/articles/what-european-countries-sacrifi...

"capacity" amazing how forced markets can't create capacity? its also why healthcare is rationed in places like Europe and Canada. Free? Sure if you don't mind waiting months or years...

> if you're a rich white guy

Amazing how skin color is the first thing brought up by those (presumably) fighting racism. Ironic?

And my point is that aside from the pendantry about DDGs affect specifically... the result will be scoring systems based on more than just financial capabilities. IE: "we don't want to lend to those who use DDG because they are rich white guys". Deplatforming based on perceived "facts".

isn't government funding? it's literally redistrubtion of wealth by the government.

I never said they had control of what's spent... just that government help leads to higher prices. And it's easily provable that where government puts money, prices go up. Supply and demand - more money available? prices go up.

> probably

Government funded things go up in price. Prime example: eductation and child care.

Government funded problems that lead to government funded solutions.

I think the denial to credit for DDG is less about credit worthyness and more about "deplatforming" based on personal details. Or thats what it'll become.

> Are you citing absolute numbers?

https://medium.com/the-radical-center/the-triumph-of-the-mid...

Plenty of info out there that wealth is getting distributed globally. The absolute poor are decreasing and the middle class globally is increasing - absolute numbers and by the %'ages.

> inevitably get accused

If you use the ideas and thoughts of it... then of course you're going to get accused of it.

And your "why you gotta call me a communist" doesn't answer the question... what other options are there?

Well, honest question... what's the alternative? because all the other options have proven to be worse by magnitudes of order.

Calls that it's not sustainable are like cries of impending starvation and privation... yet "famines" haven't happened because advances created by... capitalism. Better crop yields, better farm results, etc. Driven by "greedy capitalists".

can we do better? Sure... fight crony capitalism? coporatism? absolutely...

But end of day... the alternatives? have proven worse - unless you have proof otherwise and history isn't with you on that...

IL code. .net compiles to intermediate language which runs on a local interpeter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Intermediate_Language

https://www.i-programmer.info/programming/other-languages/93...

The problem is that more people are middle class+ than ever... so while you complain of "decades of waiting" the fact remains that all boats ARE rising.

The only difference is that you now have a direct connection to the few that have risen faster - there have always been those people. But you now see them. They are still the 1% but they are in your face like never before.

"it's time to try something else" What else is there? Socialism? Tried, failed worse. Communism? Even worse. In all systems man has created, there's inequality. "equity" (equal outcome) has been proven an unmitigated disaster time and time and time again.

Capitalism is the worst system ever.

Except for all the other systems which are worse.

Except things change from year to year so even if YOU don't change, the underlying tax laws move over time.

I mean in some aspect I agree in spirit with your point but your point is off topic.

It may be questionable to have your stuff advertised on a page about the history of Germany...

But lets be honest... that's not why these things are being taken down. They aren't being removed because advertisers are complaining. Please show me where anything of that sort is mentioned - either in the OP of this thread or specifically in the article about "buckle-less belts"...

In the example of this thread... they are being removed because someone (presumably a competitor) reported their app for SUPPORTING "rape and pedos". A dictionary with a definition of rape getting removed for "supporting" rape by defining it - while competing dictionaries aren't removed for also defining the same words? Why aren't they getting removed for having a definition of rape that advertisers don't want to be listed on?

Please... show me where I'm wrong that the dictionary application was removed for 'advertiser complaints'... or the original article has its stuff removed for advertisers complaining.

Associated with words defined in a dictionary? How pedantic do you have to be to say "I don't want to advertise with Britannica because their dictionary has the word rape"?