netdevnet

Totally! There are plenty of open options if you want customisation and more choice but nerds want to have their cake and eat it. Ain't hapening

Yes, they do. And allowing third party app stores and browsers only leads to more security and privacy issues.

No one is saying that Apple apps don't have issues. The point is that allowing more entities to make and run these apps on iOs will just make it worse. And having security issues in app store or in a browser is a far more problematic thing than a security issue in a random app. Especially if the app store or browser is run by someone that is not Apple.

Why? Companies owe you nothing beyond their actual contractual and legal obligations.

It would be wonderful if they did and they were more transparent and open to dialogue in a more democratic way. But it's not happening

Not sure how is this relevant. The mobile market is just on another level in terms of users and money. Apple is a business not a charity. It makes sense that they don't want to incur in expenses that don't increase revenue. Tech nerds have this idea that tech businesses should do stuff just because. Do you ask your milk provider to incur in more expenses just because?

It would be different if Apple had made some pledges or commitments towards this. But it hasn't. Its only commitment is to make money for the shareholders. Everything else is secondary

Sandboxed app stores would likely involve more efforts to keep it performant, functional and secure. Efforts that don't result in more revenue

There are more phone users than PC users though. Stats estimate a 4 billion difference. Can you imagine the costs of having just an increase of 400k users flooding your shops and online forums for help because of one of these third party stores/browsers? It makes sense if you could do this in the very beginning (as it was the case for PCs) but for smartphones that were closed since the beginning (it is downhill in the cost/revenue world)

Money that goes into this is money that doesn't go into the shareholders pockets or into growing Apple. It's like asking Whatsapp to allow third party clients or expose their API. Makes tech nerd sense but not business sense.

At the of the day, tech nerd sense is working your socks off on an OSS that companies get to use for free with 0 contribution to the ecosystem while accepting underpaid tech jobs. Business sense is decreasing costs and increasing revenue in the long term

Allowing alternative app stores and browsers is likely to lead to more security issues, more users using tech support resources because a dodgy app downloaded from a 3rd party app store they installed broke their phone in odd ways and will likely increase expenses without increasing revenue.

Because let's be honest, most of the population does not even understand the idea of "app store" beyond THE app store the same way they don't understand the idea of "search engine" beyond Google Search. If Chrome only allowed you to use Google Search as the search engine, most people wouldn't complain. This is the same. As long as they can download their [insert Big Tech Company here] walled garden app, most will not complain. But if their phone starts misbehaving because of a rogue app from a dodgy app store or phones suddenly get more expensive to compensate for higher costs incurred by Apple for their development and support of third party app stores and browsers most will complain.

UPDATE: getting downvoted for pointing out the reality. Most people are not hackers. They don't want customisation options. They are happy with a default store or browser as long as it is good enough. If you want options, Android is there

Nooope! Services like stripe let you test the payment workflow in their test environment which works exactly like the production one but without the payments going outside Stripe.

Let us not normalise bad practices

Ready meals

Is it just me or does anyone also get this odd feeling when people use phrases like "challenged a law of nature". Makes it sound like he did something that is physically impossible when he actually attempted something that was believed to be impossible or highly unlikely

Free jazz doesn't encompass all or most of jazz though

> - workplace is in a way the only community of like-minded people have outside of family

Not having friends is more of a modern American culture thing. When you have no social life independent of your work life you get that and the loneliness epidemic in US

It didn't make a different though. Linux still went down so clearly the design is enough

> If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts.

Not sure where you were raised but in the western world, shaming the gift giver is extremely rude and will definitely cost you your social reputation. The gift giver is considered to be right in being upset at being shamed

Make a private repo. Making it public, with a readme and ready to be consumed (via npm or the like) implies that you are sharing this with the public. You shouldn't prevent discussion in those cases imo especially if it doesn't require any effort from you to make and keep the issues page available

> Linux has eBPF which can provide most of the capability that Crowdstrike needs, by using an "in-kernel verifier which performs static code analysis and rejects programs which crash, hang or otherwise interfere with the kernel negatively". If MS had this functionality, it is likely this incident would not have happened.

It didn't stop Linux machines from being down so it is clearly not as easy as you put it. The reality is that writing software is hard yet devs often trivialise it to their own detriment

Think viral infection and high body temperature. Not the same

Also, discussion about AI:

- overwhelmingly focuses on LLMs

- assumes that AI equates LLMs

- assumes AGI is around the corner or it will never happen

I couldn't guess anything other than what you revealed, mind sharing? Also, what are your actual views on crypto that you think stops you from a tech role?

Tech folks often complain about the interview experience but a big part of that experience is created by tech folks. Stuff like what you went through is really to blame in tech culture imo

The reality is that thanks to those tech wizards, most companies don't need tech wizards to build tech products and most tech workers don't need to know anywhere near as much as you would need to back in the days.

The same kind of "I just love to code" tech wizard that builds an amazing service/library/product, overworks itself while letting big companies extract max value out of it and contribute nothing or extremely little to the open source world.

Every day I think of the Homebrew creator who got rejected by the company that uses his software daily. This should be in the mind of every dev imo.

Tech wizards wrote their fate on code, compiled it and served it to the market. This is the result

That makes sense

Not sure if comparing salary potentials coming from two different socio-economic periods is useful or likely to mislead.

Tech and people versed in it were not common (to people outside tech) and so the high salaries would reflect that. Now is not the case. It was always going to be temporary. As people become acquainted with tech people, the magic vanishes, you see the code behind the pixels. At the same time, tech people themselves did cause this by making tech easier to understand and manipulate.

It's like a magician, the first few times, it is enticing and mysterious but after a while it becomes ordinary. Tech wizards are just like that.

I feel saying that the industry is imploding is an exaggeration. We are just having a room cleanup period.

- Crypto/ML startups built on promises

- Companies built on the latest buzzword (LLM startups will have their Judgement Day by 2027 latest)

- Companies giving crazy high salaries to inexperienced people straight out of bootcamps

- Companies spending crazy money on "perks" such as free food and in-office entertainment

- Companies paying big bonuses to all tech employees

- Companies overhiring so that the competition remains understaffed

Money is not free anymore. Everyone is looking where the pennies go. Companies have behaved like your average Amazon customer and have filled their companies with subscriptions they don't really need (see overhired employees, perks, high salaries). Belt tightening is the mood.

Easy is relative. And just because it might be feasible to do it in 5-8 years, it does not mean that the founders will be in a position to start it

Surely, we can all agree that this is not sustainable. Companies basically throwing money at people that might not have the skills you need is a massive waste of money from the companies point of view.

> so that prices for labor will go down.

I don't think that's the reason (it is a side effect though). What makes you think that?

How is them going down related to the market? They are a non-profit.

This is pure speculation but I would imagine that they reasons for closing are likely resource related (most likely financial) as organisers and managers can be replaced

There is definitely some requirements to achieve that otherwise every simulation would be able to achieve it. The million dollar question is what are those requirements.

imo, your environment needs a certain level of complexity (what this level is no one knows), your fitness function (or whatever you use) needs a certain level of complexity and your simulation needs to run for a very long time (how long no one knows). If you think about it, our universe is incredibly rich in complexity and detail and even then, it took about 9 billion years for carbon based life to appear on Earth. So surely, in your much less complex environment, you will need the same or more "time"