metachor
metachor on Hacker News
What the heck kind of take is that? We should be fighting tooth and nail today to not let that kind of future come into existence.
No, this doesn't solve the problem for anyone. They need to cancel it immediately, or make it opt-in, again immediately.
The vast majority of software companies are not producing things that matter beyond the scope of capital accumulation.
Is this a form of mechanomorphism, where we try to reason about how human cognition might work by drawing an analogy from how computers work (specifically, overfitting in ANNs) and try to apply it back to humans?
That's sad friend. Your community failed you when growing up. This makes me want to weep.
"Well they'll just hire someone else to do it if I quit. Might as well keep doing it myself."
Spot on. To quote Marshall Rosenberg quoting Hannah Arendt:
In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, which documents the war crimes trial of Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt quotes Eichmann saying that he and his fellow officers had their own name for the responsibility-denying language they used. They called it Amtssprache, loosely translated into English as “office talk” or “bureaucratese.” For example, if asked why they took a certain action, the response would be, “I had to.” If asked why they “had to,” the answer would be, “Superiors’ orders.” “Company policy.” “It was the law.”
From Nonviolent Communication, page 19 on “Denial of Responsibility”.
Sad to see there's a lot of office talk being used in this thread.
But it is most definitely not the shareholders. Definitely just the users and employees. Yup. ;)
You seem to be confusing small businesses with corporations, as if they have the same economic and power imperatives.
Or, why are so many of our current politicians ex-executives or ex-lobbyists?
According to the founder of Co-Star's linkedin profile, they raised "$6 million of investment from the venture firms behind companies like Glossier, Allbirds, and Everlane".
On Co-Star's website they have positive press reviews from The New Yorker, The Verge, Cosmo, Vanity Fair, Gizmodo, New York Times, HuffPo, Drudge Report, Newsweek, Financial Times, Vogue, and more.
It's obvious that Co-Star app is being pumped as a VC darling and someone wants to eventually get their money back.
Apple is playing their part in the $$ ecosystem by gatekeeping competition.
Power companies
do charge different rates depending on what electronics are used.
Energy utility rate structures are both complex and unique to the individual company, but at a high level different classes of consumer pay different rate plans, such as residential vs. commercial/industrial vs. agricultural, and which is ultimately determined by the type of and quantity of certain electronic devices installed on premise as is normal for that class.
With that said, as a residential consumer there is little chance that you could ever legally or physically install one of the devices at your home that would necessitate being charged a CI or agricultural rate.
And interestingly enough those rates are all regulated by very heavy weight local/state and federal regulatory commissions.
Because it's easier to garner clicks for ad impressions by making bold claims about the amazing (unproven) future benefits of a minor scientific discovery than by presenting readers with the actual science.
"Now if Spotify were to be banned from the AppStore, how else would you receive its service?"
The Spotify Web Player works perfectly fine on iPhone's mobile Safari. No, it's not a native app, but it exists as an alternative delivery method for the service.
That's disingenuous. How well would it scale for a musician to personally handle depositing checks from millions of fans? There is a very good reason that many musicians become involved with labels, promoters, distributors, etc., which is to free up the time of the artist to focus on what they are actually interested in doing: writing and playing music.
Is it on Android, or on an "Android-based operating system" as mentioned in the article?
If Apple blocked fart apps of third-party developers for the sake of... I don't know what, quality or decency, then people would complain Apple are being censors.
Regarding Shoemaker, maybe Apple hired him to direct the App Store because he can run a massive online marketplace, and not because he's a talented or creative app developer.
No it is not. The status quo is that no one has yet made any binding decisions, and the telecom operators will try to get away with what they can until the FCC slaps them down.
Google just succeeded in getting Verizon to agree to net neutrality on the wired internet in exchange for removing any possibility of net neutrality on the wireless internet (which Google claims is the future of internet).
No they didn't. This is the same thing that happens any time anyone gets riled up about a patent. Someone glanced at the title or an image (in this case) in a patent application and assumes that is what the patent
is for. In this case it is not, which is clear if you read the actual claims of the patent. The image is one of many existing third-party app screens used in this patent application to show apps where the invention in question (location-based notifications) might find use.
Apple did not "just do some Evil" here. This is simply bad reporting about someone's mistaken mis-observation. I don't know why, but when it comes to Apple, a lot of people's normal inhibitions for shoddy reporting become spectacularly lowered.
Objective-C 2.0 does have garbage collection. It can be enabled for an application in the IDE. However iOS apps do not support use of garbage collection.
Other than printing, yes. And I recall some email from Jobs where he said printing on iPad would be solved eventually.
At what point does Apple need to sue AT&T so they can break their exclusivity contract on iOS devices?
The lesson I took away from Panic's Audion story is that they got gridlocked while trying to play two potential buyers (AOL and Apple), and Apple ended up moving forward with a less encumbered competitor. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like Panic wanted to get eaten by an 800lb. gorilla.
Looking at the app in question (
http://www.groundhog.com.au/myframe/), it is pretty easy to see what is so "widget"-y about this app, and the way in which it "creates its own desktop". There shouldn't be any mystery for the developer based on Apple's statements.
Android might be growing faster than iPhone, but how does that directly benefit Google? Apple makes money for every iPhone sold, but Android phones are manufactured and sold by other companies than Google. I thought Google gave away the OS for free (unlike Microsoft's strategy of licensing their mobile OS at a cost). Can someone explain to me how Google makes money on Android phone sales?
Please don't say "future search ad revenue from having more internet connected devices in the hands of consumers."
Edit: In answer to my own question, if the only profit Google makes from Android sales is search ad revenue, then according to this article (http://aseidman.com/2010/05/65000-new-android-devices-ship-e...), Google makes only $8.63 per Android device sold over the entire lifetime of that device. Article was found via HN, but no one has commented on it yet.
So apart from this meager search ad revenue, how does Google benefit financially from Android sales? I just can't figure this one out.
When the iPhone came out, I distinctly remember Apple saying that web apps were the future and the iPhone with mobile Safari was ready to bring that future
now.
Flash-forward after a year of developers crying to write native apps, and the iPhone SDK and App Store were born, to give the developers what they asked for. It turns out there are political limitations to writing native apps for the App Store... so now those same devs are finding the bed they wanted a bit uncomfortable to sleep in, and blame Apple who wanted them to write web apps in the first place.
I really don't see this "locked-down future" that people whinge about. Apple is still leading the open web app platform charge with WebKit, which powers both Safari and Chrome, as well as their work evangelizing HTML5 technologies to the general public.
"What if Wikipedia became so important that people would pay to edit the pages? There are corporations who would love to have the final word, and they could, so long as they paid for it, perhaps?"
This is a terrible idea and would lead to serious astroturfing of otherwise neutral articles. This would only serve to make money the final arbiter of truth.
Can you explain what some of those lower level functions are on the web that need a lower level language? As far as I can tell, the lowest level of the web is sending a static document to the requester via HTTP. Any lower than that and you are talking about TCP/IP sockets, etc.
In the domain of Operating Systems this makes more sense, because the OS or kernel is generally written in the low level language that is being asked about (i.e. C). Any higher-level language is generally implemented in terms of the low level language, making it available as a fall back for low level tasks (i.e. tasks on the OS/kernel level).
I'm just not sure how this concept of lower-level languages applies to the web.