s73ver

Because most things are easier when you can have one canonical source of truth.

I think it's more supposed to be a riff and a counter to the bs "Millennials are killing X" articles that are so popular lately.

"An entrepreneur's primary function is to create jobs"

No, it's to create wealth. That jobs can also be created is a happy side effect.

Problem being, a lot of people would get absolutely screwed by that, and end up losing their home. There needs to be a way to fix that, without going back to the original problem Prop 13 was intended to fix, which was people being unable to afford the property tax on homes that they had been living in forever.

And lose all their contacts, and have to communicate to them that they lost their account and had to get a new one.

This idea that open source is somehow immune from criticism is old and tired. If they want to pretend like they're targeting normal people, they need to act like it. This means putting work into things like UX.

For something that would aim to be used by the general public, that's a huge problem.

"Each of those things is a continuum. Yes, certain tradeoffs have to be made if you want a decentralized application. But you're omitting being decentralized and not under control of a single entity as a goal itself."

Probably because the top goal, above whatever else they want to do, is that it has to work to let people talk to each other, and work reliably.

I think it's extremely fair. "Unbreakable privacy" doesn't much matter if no one wants to use the system.

"Yes, the money laundering part should not be prosecutable as long as you weren't involved in any crime."

Aiding criminal activity, which money laundering most assuredly is, is itself a crime.

"Like I said before, not everything that is illegal is wrong."

But things that are illegal are... illegal.

Nobody in this thread is really debating the morality of illegal actions we're talking about. And while debating morality can be entertaining, it doesn't really change what happened here.

I'm really beginning to doubt the idea that people who act like this are mentally disturbed. I think they're just shitheads.

If that's the case, then we shouldn't hear any complaining about having to learn Java, ObjC or Swift.

Wrong on all counts. Software was patentable in the US. And there was a long, long time where there were a lot of patents whose only "innovation" was doing something on a computer.

"Crypto is math based money so now the SEC is basically trying to regulate math. Any reasoning person will see the futility in that."

Any reasoning person will know that what you said is not accurate in the least.

"Paradigm shifts require new rules"

This is NOT a paradigm shift. Literally you are arguing to go back to the days when software was patentable, and that "on a computer" should be all that's required to get a patent.

"You can't regulate a car the same way you regulate a horse."

No, but I can regulate what they are trying to do, which is provide transportation, the same. Likewise, these coins are not doing anything new. They are doing the exact same thing, just in a new package.

"I think the point is rather that single-codebase "productivity apps" that satisfy basic modern experience expectations (like "I could run it offline") are not possible elsewhere - but they should be."

Why?

"Also, the thing about expanding the Open Web Platform is that the new features that are available to me don't take anything away from you if you don't want to use them. "

As a user, they do. If you go whole hog on the PWA stuff, then I no longer have the regular website you used to have.

In practice, they tend to make it look like iOS, but then they ship the same thing for Android, meaning the Android app looks like an iOS app.

"and even if you get pixel-perfect between android and ios"

Nobody but designers who think too highly of themselves wants this. Everyone else wants the app to fit in with the platforms toolkit. This requires the designs to be different.

"Writing two pixel+cultural perfect apps on two platforms, keeping them in sync, making sure they're not buggy, attempting to share code, attempting to keep them both secure is incredibly expensive. If you don't believe me then do it yourself."

Which is why I don't do it the way you described. I embrace what makes each platform unique.

"You seem to be laser-focused on this one tiny part of PWAs."

We're laser focused on the annoying parts that we know will be abused to death.

"Imagine if you could press a button on the page to save that article you're reading for later, and have it available offline next time you need it."

Most browsers already do this.

"PWAs are just flat out _better_ than existing web apps. It's remarkable to me that so many people seem to be against these incredibly useful features just because the app they're using is web-based rather than native."

Because we already have native apps to do these things. I don't want websites to do these things. I want a website to be a website.

I'm an Android user, and I don't want these either. Mainly because they don't integrate with the native look & feel of the platform. And when a dev tries to, then inevitably make it look like iOS, and ignores Android look & feel.

"It seems like the majority of the comments opposing web apps oppose them because they're cross-platform and not written specifically for their chosen platform, which is a very silly stance to have."

But it's not. By not being written specifically for the platform, everyone is just getting a least common denominator approach. Nobody is getting anything that integrates with their platform. Nobody is getting anything that embraces what makes the platform special, or good.

"but a lot of the rhetoric around here really reeks of elitism."

No, it's more that we want developers to actually make an effort to embrace the platform they're trying to work on. And, quite frankly, use something that's not JavaScript. Learn a second language.

"By fragmenting development effort, the overall product isn't as good on any platform."

At the same time, you're no longer focusing on what makes each platform unique, and just giving them all a lowest common denominator. That's not really good either.

"This means I had to learn an entirely new technology stack"

Learning new things is good.

"Until Apple adds PWA support, I can't make as good stuff, and people can't use the better stuff."

This is absolutely wrong, and is just an excuse. You can make great stuff, and people can use it. You just need to put in effort.

"Many ICOs will simply state they are out of limits for US investors and again we see that regulators like democracy and capitalism but don't really want it to be accessible to _everyone_."

No. They just said that adding the phrase "on a blockchain" is not enough to make what you're doing suddenly different.

The only way you could think that is if you also believe that patents on existing processes, but then add "On a computer" are new and novel things.

Just because something is using a blockchain does not mean it's new, or that what is happening doesn't fall under existing securities law.

Usually when you do that, you get another version of the same item back. I highly doubt that the IRS will share your view.

Why don't they just go make their own coin? Nobody is going to have confidence in a currency if the threat of forking is constantly over it's head.

Not really. Mainly because apps designed for desktop suck to use on touchscreens.

With decent reason. There is no, and I really mean no reason why someone should be forced out of their house due to rising property taxes. That's just not what taxes should be used for.

Really, it should have applied to one's primary residence, and that's it. Maybe the primary office of a small/medium business.

What's to stop them from terminating the contract a month shy, because of "performance reasons"? Unfortunately this setup would require quite a lot of trust in the industry, which, quite frankly, it has not earned.

>Our modern way is more dynamic and can be just as or even more secure, provided one has the discipline to save, invest & insure.

Do that all you like, but the second you get a debilitating illness, that goes out the window.

Don't many of the big tech companies have this with their stock options?

And I've heard that, with the Wall Street approach, your bonus is the lion's share of your income for the year. If true, I don't know if I'd like to go to that, given the propensity for letting people go in this field.

I think for this to work, we'd have to have some form of Universal Healthcare in place. Right now, if you don't have employer sponsored health insurance (and I doubt many employers would want to offer that to people who are simply doing a "tour of duty" [yeah, there should be a better name for that]), insurance isn't good. It became better with the ACA, but I don't know how hopeful I'd be that it sticks around.