No emoji is a reason HN is still good. Among many.

Your comment IMO has little value to a reader. You forcefully state your opinions but give me no reason why I should adopt them or any basis on which I could challenge them. I am more interested in why you think what you do than in what you actually think.

Why is that the only feature worth paying for? How are watches an "extension of this behaviour"? Why should everything be "mandated open protocol"? Do you see how that can lead to ossification and the stifling of innovation?

Amazon offers returns... so what? I haven't bought anything from Amazon for years. Some people don't want unreliable crap they have to constantly fight over warranties on, even in places with good consumer protection laws. Some just want something that actually works.

Sure, but most comments on the internet (very much including this forum) offer zero or negative "value" to the reader. What we're doing now is typically called "socializing and discussing topics of the day", which is typically a non-transactional sort of relationship. Notably absent from this is any obligation to persuade you of anything. I won't waste my time; I know this forum and the kind of discourse people want to have. What I say on this forum is self-actualization and deep therapy saying all the stuff I can't say to my coworkers' faces when they wag their jaws.

> Some just want something that actually works.

Sure! Some people are rich and assign little "value" to money relative to time (including me). This doesn't change anything: apple still operates at deep cost to the public. All that profit could be being put to productive use outside the reach of centralized capital. But as it stands they're basically lighting aforementioned cash on fire for the vibes and quarterly reports. If I see you with white earbuds in, I'll start selling you a bridge.

>What I say on this forum is self-actualization and deep therapy saying all the stuff I can't say to my coworkers' faces when they wag their jaws.

This is not what HN is for. We should not use it as a place to vent frustrations.

>This doesn't change anything: apple still operates at deep cost to the public. All that profit could be being put to productive use outside the reach of centralized capital.

That makes no sense. If that profit were put to better use elsewhere it would be. Either Apple itself would invest it elsewhere or people would invest it elsewhere instead of giving money to Apple in exchange for their products.

If you think a business making money "costs the public" that money you fundamentally misunderstand the very most basic principles of economics. It is the equivalent of saying that you think integers in computers are stored in base 3 or confidently proclaiming that "single entry accounting is the standard way to do it" or something. It is so so so wrong.

> If that profit were put to better use elsewhere it would be.

how economists managed to fuse math with mysticism I have no clue. This certainly never came from adam smith.

Where does mysticism come into it? It is logical reasoning applied and confirmed by observations.

Don't let your emoji memes be dreams: 𓀤

*-*