What an ugly UI update. I usually don't mind too much about the changes in MacOS UI and visuals, but opening up Finder leaves me shocked that this actually got the green light. Who in their right mind looked at this and thought: "yep that's the future, it looks fantastic!".
For Finder I discovered that changing the Toolbar to Icon Only significantly improved it. Then I set the sidebar icons to small in the Appearance system setting. That helped a lot.
Most of the new UI is designed almost exclusively for icon only toolbars.
Does London need the Global Rich hanging around if they’re not willing to pay taxes? Is it necessary to have the tax bring in 30 Billion in order for it to be considered a success?
If nothing else, this tax demonstrates to those who DO pay tax, that the Government is willing to treat earners equally and fairly, regardless of how much tax it brings in.
They do pay taxes though. Non domiciled are roughly 0.11% of UK residents and pay about 1.24% of UK taxes. This change is likely to lower tax revenues.
> Non domiciled are roughly 0.11% of UK residents and pay about 1.24% of UK taxes
It's curious that the percentages used to defend not taxing the rich (whether they are UK citizens, or operating as "non-doms") tend to be what percentage of the tax burden they pay. But it's never what percentage of their income and capital gains they pay as tax.
I think the latter is a fairer representation, considering we have a progressive taxation system. Someone who is earning over £125k a year should be paying close to 45% of their income and capital gains.
The world has to be dealt with how it is. For example:
>The question is: are they? If not, why not?
Because they're non-domiciled and for several centuries the UK didn't tax foreign income of non domiciled residents. It's not a mystery, it was the law.
The non-dom's came to the UK because of this tax regime. The UK can either have the revenue they get from them, which is substantial. Or, it can remove the non-dom regime, hope they stay, but be prepared for total loss of their revenue if they leave.
There's no magical third choice where everyone in that non-dom category stays just cause and pays more money. So far it looks like UK tax revenues are set to diminish from this change.
So what you are saying is, it eventually trickles down?
edit: The reality is they don't spend enough for it to offset the harms that wealth inequality brings.
I know a couple of people who have been using this London loophole as a way to avoid paying taxes anywhere at all. They are not residents here, they are not residents there, and their income is earnt globally. So they think they shouldn't have to pay tax to any particular country.
If you're trying to imply the housing shortage only exists because rich people have too much money and are making prices too high for everyone else, that doesn't make much sense. If everyone had the same amount of wealth, you'd still have the same housing crisis. Specifically, there's still going to be the same amount of houses in London, and the same amount of people who want to live there but can't. The problem of housing in London is that there isn't enough for everyone who wants to live there, not that the rich are making prices unaffordable.
> The problem of housing in London is that there isn't enough for everyone who wants to live there, not that the rich are making prices unaffordable.
And why might that be? Could it be that the rich are using their wealth and disproportional influence that wealth gives them to slow down or block new development to keep their property values high, or are we supposed to believe that places where housing is used as an investment vehicle are just naturally incompetent at building more housing?
That's not entirely true. The rich have been buying multiple houses in London, as well as buying rows of housing and joining them internally. Plus if the market is for the wealthy then the prices are controlled by that. You can argue that London has always been a wealthy city, but things have really gone into overdrive over the last 2 decades.
Both of these things are true. London doesn't build enough but rich people are sitting on supply and raising prices. London needs to build more houses as well as prevent people from turning them into Airbnbs or investment properties.
Are they? Or are they there to outcompete ordinary people for houses, labour, etc?
We don't need a bigger market for luxury dog sitters or sports car manufacturing, better allocate those resources for childcare, elder care, or other chronically understaffed fields.
This worked because China had very strong regulatory frameworks and redistribution was at center of that philosophy. The entire point of letting a few people get rich was that those people who get rich will need to pay taxes to redistribute that wealth around the country.
The people who hoard the wealth in the US actively attack regulation and avoid taxes so that they don't have to redistribute the wealth. At that point, you're a drain on the system.
>This worked because China had very strong regulatory frameworks and made sure the wealth was redistributed.
Source? Aside from some lip service paid about "common prosperity", China definitely does not have a strong wealth redistribution system. I can't find good metrics on size of welfare systems specifically, but using the crude metric of government revenue as % of GDP, it's clear that China isn't some sort of global leader in redistribution.
> Aside from some lip service paid about "common prosperity", China definitely does not have a strong wealth redistribution system
I don't think this does your argument any favors because by your words, it didn't work. Because you're right, China's "let a few people get rich" idea led to massive wealth inequality but redistribution was always at the center of the idea and what I'm talking about are recent reforms that Xi is taking to accelerate that redistribution such as and introducing salary caps, increasing taxes, and creating more social security programs the rich have to pay into. So China is right now building their strong wealth redistribution network.
> what I'm talking about are recent reforms that Xi is taking to accelerate that redistribution such as and introducing salary caps, increasing taxes, and creating more social security programs the rich have to pay into. So China is right now building their strong wealth redistribution network.
and its gdp growth, prosperity, and investment rate going down at an exactly same rate…
"GDP growth" and "investment rate" are just really terrible proxy indicators for the thing most people actually care about, i.e. quality of life for the common person. Without context they're just distasteful weasel words that strongly imply that GDP is somehow representative of the quality of life, which only serves to trick people into voting against their own interests.
So? Quality of life has improved and they have virtually eliminated extreme poverty by focusing on this redistribution[0]. Ask those people how they feel about GDP growth slowing down. They don't care.
Likely you’ve been flagged because everyone on hackernews refuses to see themselves as working class and think that we’re the global elite that needs protecting.
“Failure” is of course subjective, but I would say that the gargantuan increase in wealth inequality is a datapoint in favour of suggesting that its a failed model.
Post-War consensus Britain was a golden age, and neoliberalism has been harmful to the quality of life for an overwhelming number of British people. This is just factual, by all the data we have.
I'm not claiming they pay as much tax or spend as much as percentage; but they do spend money in the country; it might not be a fair amount etc - but it's a useful amount going into the pot. So if you emphasise fairness they leave and you have less tax to spend on the poor.
As long as they're not actively doing bad things, I'd rather have the cash coming into the country.
If, say, a megarich person who only operated their business in that country left, would the economic system be hurt after the initial shock wore off? They aren’t like doing charity work; in principle it’s either net zero into and out of their companies or producing value by the function of the company, and if the latter then shouldn’t whatever niche they occupied before be quickly filled? I don’t really understand the economic logic, and I’d genuinely appreciate an explanation because maybe I’m just not informed.
There are plenty of people with money, who do pay taxes, who can start those businesses. We don’t need trickle down economics in order to function as a society.
Yes, I took from my community to get to where I am. I used libraries, roads, and social services. Ethically, it's only fair that you pay it back and give other people the same chance I had. If you have clean water coming out the tap then you benefit from people paying taxes.
That is noble, but what about taxes funding things with which you disagree, e.g. wars or whatever else with what you disagree completely, with passion?
As for the down-voter of my parent post, I would like to say that the question was genuine, out of curiosity. I do not see the reason for the down-vote, really.
For the record I didn't downvote you. As for your question, I get what you are getting at but I don't get to pick and choose where my taxes go and you will never 100% agree with everything being spent on a government level.
If it got to a situation where libraries aren't being funded and water isn't clean, which isn't out of the realm of possibility with this administration, then I may need to reevaluate my stance but right now I'm fine paying what I owe.
"slightly more indirectly" is an interesting way to say "by distorting local economies and politics around the idiosyncratic needs and desires of a very small number of uber-wealthy foreigners."
I find it fascinating reading hacker news, full of IT folk who simultaneously build software that enables and profits from the advertising and personal information selling & tracking industry - are also the same people who complain the loudest about it. Unbelievable.
Probably because people like us have more visibility on the huge scope and consequences of this kind of privacy invasion. Most people don't actually see this with their own eyes. They probably know it's happening in the back of their heads but it's not 'real' to them. It's very real when you know you could technically run a report of all your users that also have grindr installed.
I'm sure most of us would prefer not to work somewhere that does it but we need to eat too.. And we have no input in this.
For example recently I was given a presentation on a new IoT product at work. Immediately I asked why we're not supporting open standards stuff like matter as a protocol. And I was told that'll never fly with marketing because they want to have all the customers to have eyes on their app for their 'metrics' and upselling. I told them fine but I'm definitely not using this crap myself. But it was shrugged off. We are too few for them to care about. And it makes us very unpopular in the company too. So it's a risky thing to do that doesn't help anyway. The "don't fight them but join them and change from within" idea is a fallacy.
Yes, because everyone on Hackernews is identical and working on the exact same stuff. It's not like it's a few companies enabling this and each marketing department going like oooooh i want that.
There’s no code of conduct or rule book that anyone should follow so ethics is determined at the individual level. That quickly turns to, either I build it for them or the next guy will. Resistance is futile type thing.
Most other types of engineering have published rules and standards and industry credentialing including ethics tied into it and loss of credentials for an ethics violation would be career ending in many cases.
(I can only think of straw-man examples. Does the private prison industry have problems getting architects, civil engineers, electrical engineers? Does the pharma industry have problems getting chemical engineers for manufacturing addictive painkillers?)
Architects have to build to codes and have their plans signed off by an engineer that is very much liable for the basic safety of the structure.
I’m a CFO and the CPA credential helps a whole industry of accountants avoid outright shenanigans that would take place if we could report financials the way sales, marketing and some others would prefer. We also have a whole layer of audits to help make sure what we say is true, is true.
It’s obviously not perfect and There’s always going to be bad actors but having industry guardrails does help a lot more than is obvious. This is one of those things we’re the absence of data is the data. The fact it’s pretty rare for a skyscraper to structurally fail and Enron type financial fraud situations are relatively rare. It’s hard to imagine how much things around us would be worse without checks and balances.
As for pharma example, I think it’s a good point but also a bit of a case study in where this should have worked but didn’t. Those sometimes are necessary things. Just like how originally technologists thought social media was beneficial to society, it could perhaps be revisited with a different opinion with a different perspective with benefit of hindsight. It’s pretty subjective and opinionated but I personally think R&D should be pretty loose. In pharma, you have to be pretty open minded as it seems sometimes things are discovered while in search of something else. The business of pharma, the sales people pushing those addictive pain meds, should be able to push them (with an expectation of presenting accurate data of research/side effects/etc). Prescribing physicians are ultimately the best check. Even when lied to about addiction stats, they didn’t seem to perform the appropriate check/balance as their profession would normally have done and sound alarms / stop prescribing. Instead, as a whole, they leaned into the idea that pain should be more aggressively managed than it has been in the past. They were all very slow to act even when addiction had been identified as a problem. The confluence of all these things has caused the industry to become introspective and change some things in hopes to avoid a similar repeat. Just like Enron did for finance and household accident data drives improving building guidelines. Software remains the Wild West without something similar in place.
To circle back to the CPA example as that’s what I’m most familiar with, it doesn’t tell me not to work in a particular industry. Like, private prisons need accountants. But it tells me what type of accounting practices are acceptable. I’d imagine a similar example for the context of this topic, is you wouldn’t be told not to work for an adtech company but in that employment you would be able to say certain types of data sharing is decidedly inappropriate according to your industry standards and you would be putting your career in jeopardy by building a feature sales requested. Furthermore you have things like whistleblowing hotlines and eventually other companies that couldn’t work with your adtech company because doing so would be considered an ethics violation on their part. Etc etc.
We might not be the same. Every time someone asks for tracking anything I complain and question a lot. People hate me, but if there is no real use case for storing all information we can get I will veto as much as I can.
The IT folks working in the advertising industry are much more the "who cares, everyone has all our data already anyway".
So you think individuals have control over how the industry works? The insight it gives devs is why some are so outspoken about it. This is a good thing.
VMware passes through the id of the physical hardware into the guest VM. So if you're running on apple hardware, this works. If you're running on a PC, there are hacks to 'borrow' the serial number of some ancient imac and have it work still (even ancient systems are still allowed to log into icloud, and those ancient systems didn't do any cryptography so all you need is a valid serial number that nobody else is using).
> If you're running on a PC, there are hacks to 'borrow' the serial number of some ancient imac and have it work still (even ancient systems are still allowed to log into icloud, and those ancient systems didn't do any cryptography so all you need is a valid serial number that nobody else is using).
Hackintosh users have to do something similar to be able to sign into iCloud.
The serial number doesn't have to be valid (as in existing on a physical machine) to work, though. It just needs to look valid (be generated using the same methodology as real serials). In fact in order to prevent accidentally using a serial tied to a machine owned by somebody else, the recommended procedure is to generate a serial and check its AppleCare status to verify that it's not tied to a real machine, and if it is to regenerate and check until you find one that isn't.
> even ancient systems are still allowed to log into icloud, and those ancient systems didn't do any cryptography so all you need is a valid serial number that nobody else is using
The ancient random serial numbers are also in a standard format.
> Apple devices manufactured after 2010 generally have 12-character alphanumeric serial numbers, with the first three digits representing the manufacturing location, the following two indicating the year and week of manufacture, the next three digits providing a unique identifier, and the last four digits representing the model number.
But if this serial number was shared between several people, all of whom might have logged in with a different apple cloud id, would that somehow cause apple to trigger something?
i could be completely wrong here, but i do seem to remember something about there being some physical chip in the machine that needed to be present for e.g. iMessage to work. this was a while ago but iirc they also somehow incorporated local Apple ID account management into that system.
Note that the EU's Digital Markets Act will probably stop all that bs, as requiring to use one core platform service to develop for, and distribute to, another (iOS) is against that law.
Third-party app stores and outright website-based app distribution are coming next year anyway.
That's interesting, I did not know about this legislation. I'm not European, but it seems that even outside of Europe, people will benefit from this change.
If Apple was compelled to support a first-class iOS development experience on Windows, all this would do is immovably stunt the continued improvement of iOS development on macOS. There is a material degree of OS integration / cooperation in IOS development with Xcode. If Apple released a second-class development experience I’ve no doubt that you’d spare no time in making similar insinuations that it’s some sort of artificial constraint.
Xcode and iOS Simulator on other platforms would involve porting AppKit as well as writing all-new Darwin virtualization for those platforms. Xcode is thoroughly a Mac native app, and the iOS/watchOS/tvOS/etc simulators currently just run the respective userlands on top of the underpinnings that macOS shares with other Apple platforms.
It'd be rather similar to the situation with Docker, where Xcode and the simulators would run markedly better on macOS than on other platforms due to fewer layers being necessary. Developing for iOS on Windows or Linux would technically be possible but it wouldn't be very pleasant.
Been using Xcode since 2012 and I think it's great. It has it's flaws, sure, but overall I think it's a really good development experience. What do you dislike about it?
I've been using it since it was known as Project Builder and also don't have many complaints. It's not perfect, but it's not bad. I spend plenty of time in the IntelliJ-based Android Studio and haven't found it to be much of an improvement (and in fact, find that its "smarts" get in the way as often as they help).
Well, QEMU has no graphical acceleration for macOS (no virtio drivers for XNU and Quartz) so it's basically unusable - software rendering has been historically borked on macOS, and never well tested.
I'm sure it's possible, depending on the kind of application and the tools you use to build it. But xcode won't build your application if you don't link your account. I believe it needs that to "sign" the application with apple.
There may be ways to get around this but I don't of any.
You can manage your signing identity entirely using Apple's website and just not use automatic provisioning. (I do that anyway even though I build on macOS as I just don't want our build system tied to Xcode just so we can use the automatic provisioning.)
I just wanted to say that this article fits with my personal experience so well, so refreshing. I love messing with code and different technologies, but mostly I really only want to please myself or family members with my creations. To be relieved of the need to feel professional in my endeavour is enlightening.
Yes - all Scribes contain images (no video, though you can combine steps to generate GIFs). If you want to see what the end product looks like you can check out our gallery: https://scribehow.com/gallery
Hipster hubris? The "cool kids" crowd that jumped from PHP to RoR to node.js.
Please don't follow the hype: many of this tools will be abandoned when a new framework/language comes out and this will leave the Unix userspace more fragmented.
Maybe it's just that that's the tooling/language that the author knows. I've been guilty of writing a tool in the language I'm most familiar with whether the greater community thought it was a good idea or not.
