dpkonofa

I never suggested that they should, in either case. I'm just saying that there are things that are lost by completely ignoring backwards compatibility. There are plenty of Mac-only applications that aren't games that are now obsolete and unusable because of architecture changes.

I'm not sure why you're responding to me. Nothing that you're saying is anything that I've mentioned or brought up. I know what the downsides are. I'm just saying that the goals that Apple has optimized for have resulted in a loss of things that many would consider valuable.

I think most people, me included, are more than happy with the trade-off. That doesn't mean that nothing of value was lost in each transition.

>What was the alternative? Sticking with 65x02, 68K, or PPC?

No, including an interpreter like they did (Rosetta) was an alternative. The "alternative" really depends on what the goals were. For Apple, their goal is modern software and hardware that works together. That's antithetical to backwards compatibility.

>They could have stuck with x86 I guess. But was moving to ARM really a bad idea?

I don't think I ever suggested that it was or that they couldn't have...

>They were able to remove entire sections of the processor by getting rid of 32 bit code and saving memory and storage by not having 32 bit and 64 bit code running at the same time.

Yes, and, in doing so, they killed any software that wasn't created for a 64-bit system. Again, for even a purely historical perspective, the amount of software that didn't survive each of the instanced transitions is non-negligible. Steam now has an entire library of old Mac games that can't run on modern systems anymore because of the abandonment of 32-bit without any consideration for backwards compatibility. Yes, there are emulators and apps like Wine and CrossOver than can somewhat get these things working again but there's also a whole subsection of software that just doesn't work anymore. Again, that's just a byproduct of Apple's focus on modern codebases that are currently maintained but it's still a general detriment that so much useable software was simply lost immediately because of these changes when there could have been some focus on maintaining compatibility.

This would be great if things like open source were more supported in the "real" world. Unfortunately, you're describing exactly why a community means nothing in this situation unless the community is giving back to the project. When the "original tinkerer" moves on, everything depending on that project breaks when everything else changes around it.

>Apple has been able to migrate between 5 processors during its existence by breaking backwards compatibility and even remove entire processing subsystems from ARM chips by removing 32 bit code compatibility.

I would consider myself an Apple evangelist, for the most part, and even I can recognize what's been lost by Apple breaking backwards compatibility every time they need to shift direction. While the philosophy is great for making sure that things are modern and maintained, there is definitely a non-insignificant amount of value that is lost, even just historically but also in general, by the paradigm of constantly moving forward without regard for maintaining compatibility with the past.

Critical thinking is one thing but that "thing" is a process rather than an individual item. Critical thinking, like science, is a process that iterates upon itself. You analyze the information you have and make a conclusion based on that information. The "critical" part comes in when you take a step back and then use that same process to analyze your conclusion and poke holes in it, checking to see if the information you have supports that hole or supports the conclusion.

It's like saying that a computer is one thing despite the fact that the one thing is made up of multiple pieces.

What part of it makes it fanfiction to you? Multiple authors of the document are now in cabinet positions in the new administration.

Where were you for the last 8 years? If there's one thing the GOP is great at, it's coalescing around votes. Even with the thin margins, there are ways for them to achieve their goals quickly. I think you're not giving them enough credit here...

>Elon and Vivek have no authority to close a federal agency, and Trump doesn’t either.

You're right but the Republican-led House and Senate absolutely do have the power to both do that and grant these guys the power to do it.

Why anyone would think we're going to get more transparency this time around is beyond me. President Obama started the federal Open Data initiative and Trump, almost as quickly, neutered it just short of axing it. If they cared at all about being transparent, they would have worked on the Open Data initiatives rather than shrouding everything in further secrecy.

>All this hyperventilating over DOGE is distracting from actual issues to worry about

It's not hyperventilating. It may start as a task force but it can easily and quickly be upgraded to a full-on department of the federal government by Congress.

You say this as if Trump will also not be in control of both sides of Congress. All it takes to make this a department of the government is a vote in Congress.

For what it's worth, it was part of Project 2025 - something one of the candidates claimed to know nothing about...

Which view is that? I highly doubt that there's any view that fits the criteria you just posited.

This is a spot-on, although incredibly weird, analogy for it. It only works if you use it. You get out what you put in.

Not as a single feed. The "Discover" and "What's Hot Classic" feeds duplicate that behavior, if I'm not mistaken.

It's not for casual users. The only way it adds value to your life is if you use it more than casually. It's a symbiotic thing. The more info you feed it, the more valuable the information you receive on it will be to you.

I've been on Bluesky for a bit now and this is probably its biggest upside. The "followed" feed is the default and there's options for a "Discover" feed to see related but not subscribed posts and then there's also a "What's Hot Classic" feed which attempts to replicate the old Twitter feed where popular posts are listed with those of relevance to you bumped a bit.

I'll throw out a warning, though, to make sure you tune your settings unless you're ok with seeing buttholes and other risque images. I don't have any followers and it's constantly showing me accounts that post all kinds of sexual content by default. It's probably closer to the supposed "free speech" Twitter is claiming but without all the Nazi stuff.

No one is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone. You still have that choice, you just want to force someone else to make another choice. It's hypocritical.

She'll change the toggle and then install it. It's obvious that a lot of HN users didn't live through the period of time where IE was overrun with toolbars for nearly every user because websites would walk people through how to override their security settings so that they could install all kinds of shit. BonzaiBuddy, Yahoo Toolbar, MacKeeper, etc... they all walk people through how to turn off the security settings needed to get themselves installed.

That's the whole problem. People don't know any better so they follow the instructions to get what they think they want. They don't know what they don't know.

But the reason is there only one other competitor isn't at all because of Apple or the competitor and doesn't have anything to do with their practices. The reason for it is because it's incredibly difficult and complex to put together a device like that and only certain types of companies have the resources and funds to create a product like that.

This is almost exactly my assessment of this. Based on the action of these companies in the past (and especially Epic), the only thing I see happening by forcing Apple to further concede is the further "enshittification" of the user experience for less tech-savvy users. I'm the "tech guy" for my family and lots of my friends and I don't want to spend any more time than I currently do troubleshooting their purchase and subscription experiences. In my mind, Apple cultivated the App Store and iOS/iPhone experience and that's what got the platform to the place it is currently. Adding the option of shittier providers and shittier platforms only makes the entire situation shittier so that a small subsection of users can install the niche apps that they want.

How does that seem clear? Apple should provide services and support for people using the payment system without getting any gain from that system?

You're being disingenuous to suggest that the only benefit Apple provides is a payment system.

>but it's so offensive that it invites crackdowns, implemented by ignorant politicians and legislative bodies... hurting Apple's bottom line.

Apple is a billion (nay trillion) dollar company with the best lawyers and accountants in the world. They clearly believe that the added uncertainty and negative perception that could be attached to their brand by allowing systems that can increase fraud and malfeasance is more harmful to their bottom line than maintaining their walled garden with all the accompanying "crackdowns".

I, for one, agree with them. I would much rather keep the existing system for both myself and my extended family members and people who rely on me as their tech person than allow these third-party vultures to further complicate and enshittify the system. In the current case, if my parents bought something on their phone, I know exactly where to go to see the purchase and can easily help them refund it or, if it's a subscription, cancel it. Corporations misleading people into using external payment systems and channels in order to make a quicker buck (and keep more of that buck) is easily a worse experience for everyone involved except the vultures.

But in the case of the boards being mentioned, the sociopathy is combined with competition between members that doesn't exist right now. If one board member suggests doing something that would be negatively viewed but another doesn't, they are then competing with each other for the direction of the company as opposed to working together to do whatever sociopathic things serves both their best interests.

Sociopathy is all about driving the interests of the individual. Boards not being liable for the actions of companies allows those interests to always be aligned. Taking that away would require them to think about what's good for the business but also what's good for themselves and those things won't always align for all board members the way they do now.

This isn't always the case. Some of these companies own and run the only methods of doing certain things. There are some places, for example, where you can't use cash to pay for things. That means that, in those places, you cannot stop buying and interacting with Visa and Mastercard, for example.

Why is that surprising? I just charge mine while I’m getting ready in the morning and it last all day and does sleep tracking. My Ultra lasts multiple days on a single charge.

That is not true at all. The original iPhone required a 2 year contract and you could only buy a maximum of 2 phones per account.

It did have subsidies, though. And they were “typical”. AT&T was paying for part of the cost so that people could buy it for $499 initially. Most other phones were that price at retail and unlocked.