chaz72

I am less certain that Fox didn't know who @whyspertech was.

It still might be a reasonable tradeoff for me, for some projects but regardless: thank you, that adds some nuance that I didn't get from your earlier comment.

I've been actively wondering about generating some efficient and portable C code, and for this project it wouldn't be super-complicated, but undefined behavior is the one thing that keeps me away. C++ and Rust and C# and many other languages all add wonderful things, with side effects on portability, clarity, learning curve, language stability, etc. - wonderful things that I don't always want in a twenty-year-stable system.

Anyway, thank you for these, I'm definitely going to look further here.

I think they just missed the memo that Windows now has a modern Chromium-based Edge option for a web view component. I mean, before that, the situation was really pretty bad, but now I'd expect it to be fine. (Have not tested it yet.)

It sounds like that, but I don't think it's really true. I think that only means that with the previous tradeoffs available, they chose to keep being tracked. No reason not to try something new and maybe they'll choose something different.

Good example. First I've seen, and it doesn't apply to me so I will continue using them as I have, but good example.

I find the way you argue very frustrating. I respond to "This is a great way to make sure you have an unjust community wherein no one has the opportunity to defend themselves and speaking ill of someone is enough to evict them." by saying "It's a community they lead, they get to decide who is welcome." but then you shift the goalposts.

You slide right past my assertion that the Tor community must be able to decide who is welcome in the Tor community and refer to a nebulous "privacy community" now. Is the "privacy community" even at issue? I don't know what that is. If there is a group called the "privacy community", then yes, I agree, they should decide who is welcome in their club.

As far as I know, he's not being prosecuted. The only rights he acquires from not being prosecuted are that he won't go to jail. Right? He doesn't have any automatic right to join my club, your club, or the Tor community's club.

A slippery slope, if you will? No, let this case stand on its own:

The leaders of the Tor community were shown evidence they considered to be sufficient to boot this guy. It's a community they lead, they get to decide who is welcome. You want to start your own community and welcome him with open arms, you go right ahead.

No. Jail needs to wait for formal charges, but the community can make its own decisions whether they will accept his behavior - and they may decide they care about things that are both vile and legal, they may use entirely different reasoning than the courts.

You wouldn't write the app in C at all, most likely. You would write the library in C, because every one of those alternatives can call a C library.

Nonsense. I would think a government would be perfectly capable of hiring experts. I would fully expect them to have different motivations than industry and academic experts, but I would think they could easily - and fairly cheaply - minimize some of Congress's stupidest misunderstandings.

I expect it's very frustrating to see employees being given an insufficient computer. That's not Apple's fault though. (I mean unless they're misrepresenting things somehow, which I don't think they are.) Apple still has, last I heard, some great Pro machines that support far more wired connectivity options.

If a business buys the one when they need the other, or fails to replace broken cables, then that business is at fault.

Sounds easy! So what does your plan to implement "simple safeguards" for a chatbot on Twitter look like?

I think I'm in the same boat, only a Mac user for less than 5 years. It seems to me that it's never been perfect, but that it remains somewhat above its alternatives, especially with the hardware/software integration they can have... but it can't compete with its own reputation.

If they could make progress on the problem, I might forgive many kettles, I mean ills.

On the other hand, we don't need any more evidence. There is plenty of evidence already. This won't persuade anybody, but maybe it will motivate somebody.

Google's not making a public case. And Google, as far as I know, can read messages you send on Google services. Those are both Big Deals. I don't disagree (I don't have the expertise to!) with what you said on Apple and browser security. There are many parts.

Everybody can step up their game, I absolutely agree there.

I don't claim that Apple is as good as OTR or Signal, only that Google could do more, Google should do more, and Google should be out there helping Tim Cook make a case that back doors are a terrible idea.

edit: Microsoft, Apple, Google, they all need to step up their game and make their case in public. Apple's not perfect but they're slightly ahead of the other two major OS vendors here.

I disagree that what Cook is doing is counterproductive. I think Google could take a stronger line to secure user data if they wanted to. They don't have to become a consumer product company to run a messaging system which they cannot read. If Google can't sign on to that, maybe they should change something so that they can.

No, I like it. The jerk is shut down and not rewarded until he can communicate like a civilized person. The person who shuts him down can still pick up on the complaint and get the bug fixed for everyone else - and if not, then any widespread problem will eventually have at least one polite request entered, right?

Visual SwiftSharper. Why not?

Whole separate question. He already has that much money and that much power.

Fair enough. For my part, I would need to see a wider community supporting the language before I depended on it on non-Apple systems. I'll have to wait and see on that point. But that is a plausible outcome - and (in my opinion) more likely because they chose an open source license rather than a free software license.

Arguing about "the point" misses the point. There's plenty of room for both free software and open source software.

I like it. I would think that all they need to do is build your short term solution and the open web can provide the rest. I mean, presuming they can provide a link from the web to iTunes, which seems simple enough.

What would your ideal discovery process be?

Well, at the time the OP mentioned it, I had never heard of people choosing a position on climate change just because of who would get hurt by the process of addressing it. I still have never heard an example, and I've certainly never spoken to such a person.

I'm not disputing your experience. Some people are just contrary.

Was it a "redistribution of wealth" when paint makers were told "hey, stop making paints with lead in them, people are getting hurt"?

If it was, was that a bad thing? I would argue it was sure inconvenient for paint companies but a net gain to society. Perhaps some level of funding should be given to these companies as we take their rights away - and perhaps not, depending on how foreseeable and expensive their issues were - but the fact is, sometimes we as a society need to force them to make changes.

To my mind, it's not redistribution because the point is not to take their income away, the point is that it's time to stop. Yes, that will have an effect on their income. Not doing it will have a much higher dollar cost, and the company won't pay it directly but the country sure will.

Wait, what? Why do you think climate change is about wealth redistribution? Aren't you concerned at how much it will cost to protect all the cities on our coastlines if climate change is right? That's sure going to redistribute some wealth if we do nothing.

Well, it isn't the refrigerator that's going to stop you.