You mean it will benefit Apple’s customers, who prefer headphones not made by Apple? If only the incentive for Apple to improve their interface was that its paying customers will have a better interface.
I really don't understand people who defend Apple on this. The only reason I can imagine is that they're shareholders who don't use any Apple products, or shareholders who use exclusively Apple products and can't understand what sort of poor scrub might want an accessory not made by them.
Strange opinion. Anyone that holds the SP500 (which is probably 99% of HN users between 9am and 5pm PT) are Apple shareholders, and what’s good for Apple is entirely aligned with what’s good for them.
Taking a further step back, this same group of HN users probably understands the straightforward idea that what’s good for Bay Area tech companies is beneficial to them in a much broader sense, since they’re generally employed by them or by a very small group of other companies closely related to them.
You can accuse them of being greedy, selfish, or whatever, but certainly not that they’re unaware of where their interests lie.
Your whole post is an ignorant, ugly and hate filled rant of little value, but I will pick out this one trope:
> Not the EU and its blob of unelected bureaucratic despots and unelected Commission of dictators
EU haters have two complaints, that it is unelected and that it takes away sovereignty, yet it consists of the members of national governments that not only elect the various officers of the EU (including the Commission) but also vote on all major decisions of the EU, as well as the directly elected EU parliament. So in fact the EU preserves both sovereignty and the votes of EU citizens, both member governments and citizen representatives must approve all EU actions.
It's a little complicated sure, apparently too complicated for some to understand.
Your comment is absolutely spot on, no notes. Wish your attitude was more popular and prevalent around here. My guess is that before 2017 or so it used to be.
Apparently even Apple doesn't share your opinion. They haven't threatened to leave Europe, Japan or the United States in retaliation for App Store regulations.
> I don’t see it as a matter of defending Apple, it’s really a matter of technical understanding and competence.
So do I. And my >20 years in the business gives me the experience and knowledge to see through Apple’s FUD.
> […] but also wanting to benefit from all the work and focus that went into creating it, is understandable to me.
It is my device. I paid for it. If Apple thinks they deserve more money for what they did they are free to ask me, the customer, for more money.
> […] unelected bureaucratic despots
Aha, the dog whistle of the AfD brand of conspiratorial bullshit ”unelected” nonsense! Career bureaucracy is supposed to be certified and educated, not elected, because that is the only way they can properly implement the laws of the electorate. Bureaucracy still answers to elected officials, but they are supposed to act without political interference and provide specialist knowledge. For the same reason you do not vote on every captain and colonel in the military hierarchy, or every tax collector/auditor in your IRS equivalent, you do not vote on every bureaucrat in the Commission tasked to execute and implement law.
You had me convinced that you were a self-absorbed narcissist at “it is my device” without any self-awareness about the fact that it is your device that you purchased as it is, under those conditions; not some fantastical conditions you imagined you should have.
But you really just emphasized it with the AfD nonsense, as if everyone in the world cares about your little provincial political obsessions. “Eeek, the eradicated Italian ideology of 80+ years ago that I have been conditioned with basic Pavlovian techniques to hate to control my mind is coming for me”. Ever hear of the book 1984 and the purpose of Emmanuel Goldstein? You seem to have totally missed that they used that very same technique on you, they just templated a different event on your little mind.
Are the commission popularly elected? No they are not, child. But do explain your narcissistic rationalization for how being not elected by the relevant populace makes calling them unelected nonsense. You can’t.
Why are you so fixated on running interference for what amounts to being a cult? Do you personally benefit financially from it or something? Nothing else makes any rational, sane sense. At least if you financially benefit from your own subjugation to unelected tyrannical despots in the commission and the council, at least you can say you are corrupted, greedy, and unprincipled… if you have the confidence and character to admit it.
But you lack the most fundamental understanding of how the EU and government, let alone different systems work or are suppressed to work, so I am not sure that your statements allow for any other conclusion than that you are deluding yourself either intentionally or in some belief that you can fool or gaslight me and others.
Besides, let’s have you put on your own thinking cap for a second. Take off the mind control cap for a minute and put your thinking cap on. Ready? Do you think it is smart for the same commission that originates imaginary “legislation” that the parliament votes on like any other dictatorial system’s apparatchiks do, should also be the body overseeing the implementation of that law? It breaks the most fundamental and major human advancement in governance produced by separating powers through the Constitution. You said people should be educated. Forget government education for a second, you seem to lack the ability to think at all. Do you not understand the danger of the legislative also being the executive? It’s basically just a novel form of aristocracy you are defending, a regression, total conflict of interest in abusing power … which they aren’t even elected to.
What has been done to your mind and all of Europe is commonly called a bait and switch, also known as coercive control in basic abuse patterns of toxic relationships.
You’re quite literally just a textbook abused person rationalizing and excusing the behaviors and actions of your abusers, like someone in any other toxic relationship or a cult.
Please reconsider the harm you are doing to the world and yourself too. I get the EU told you there was candy in the windowless panel van, but you have no idea what mistake you are making and are going to make others suffer for.
> Frankly, I wish Apple had the non-binary balls to simply just cut off all iPhones in Europe rather than bend to EU despot dictates
Perhaps you should come back when you’re less emotional. Suggesting incredibly poor value for shareholder decision while also being hateful (non-binary balls, indeed) is showing the whole ass. Never go whole ass.
You're getting downvoted but it's absolutely true that people simply don't want to (or are incapable) of considering second and third order effects that arise from applying interventions on systems that they do not understand.
HN should really just do away with the down/negative voting or at the least only use it for order sorting, not “points”. The point-punishment only enables abusive and toxic people and behaviors.
I for one believe every human has equal worth and right to speak whatever they want. It may not be relevant, important, smart, or even benevolent; but I still think they should be allowed to say it and even more importantly those who choose to, should be afforded the ability to see/read/hear it. Everything else is just authoritarian, even if it’s just some narcissist who believes HE/SHE is the authority over someone else.
> The point-punishment only enables abusive and toxic people and behaviors.
Actually that's what it's fighting, people like you.
> I for one believe every human...
People can say what they like, that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to it. Freedom of speech also means the ability to silence speech you don't like.
You don't have the right to spread hate and division on a company's website any more than pedophiles have a right to talk to people's children about sex. In both cases the ability to silence speech is fundamental.
HN chooses what kind of discussion it wants to have because doing otherwise would block the sort of speech it wants to host.
I know this will be hard for you to understand, but if you think about it for a while it makes perfect sense.
It's akin to physical autonomy meaning you can't trespass.
> A completely meaningless and self-defeating argument.
Your example is literally true: in Texas you have the right to kill someone entering your home without permission.
So far from being "meaningless and self-defeating", it's reality.
Just like you can't walk on my property without my permission, you can't speak on my property without my permission, including my website. I decide who speaks and who doesn't there.
Government intervention like forbidding led-based paints or asbestos in homes? Or government intervention like doing something about the ozone depletion? Government intervention like forbidding roaming fees? Intervention like requiring 3-point seat belts? Like progressive taxation? Like forbidding discrimination based on skin colour? Like air travel safety? Like a max ceiling on credit card fees?
Abortion abolition in states that are causing women to die because doctors are afraid to perform them even when it puts the woman’s life in danger not to perform them.
It even put the life of a Republican lawmaker in dander in Florida. Of course she blamed democrats.
- Drastic overregulation of nuclear energy in the US, resulting in fossil-fuel pollution measurable in gigatons over the past several decades accompanied by literally countless illnesses and premature deaths.
- Premature mandates for airbags in cars that resulted in hundreds of needless child deaths because the technology wasn't yet safe enough for universal deployment. A scenario that's playing out right now with misfeatures like automated emergency braking.
- The Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920), whose effects are too convoluted to go into here.
- Misguided, market-distorting housing policies, ranging across the spectrum from rent control to Proposition 13.
- Many if not most aspects of the War on Drugs, including but not limited to mandatory minimum sentencing and de-facto hardwiring of racial bias into the justice system.
Okay, using that definition, Walmart, Target, Dollar Tree, my local regional grocery store, Trader Joe's and Ralph's are monopolies as well. They own their shelves and store space, and are the sole arbiters responsible for deciding what is sold within them.
Okay, so it has to be something you purchase - we're slowly getting closer to the true opinion here.
Sony is a monopoly as well then? They decide what gets sold in the Playstation store. Same with Nintendo.
Ford and Tesla are monopolies, they solely decide what is software is sold or used in their car's infotainment center stores, despite the fact that I have purchased the car!
AWS is a monopoly, despite the fact that I purchase an EC2 instance from them for one year they will not let me run certain kinds of software on it (Parler, some crypto, etc.)
Hilarious opinion. Of course they’re not, Tesla and Ford don’t have a dominant market share anywhere and have a tremendous amount of competitors. I think it would help you to take a look at what the word monopoly means.
You're not understanding my point. I'm not saying Apple has a monopoly on phones, I'm saying they have a monopoly on iPhone apps. It's the App Store that's a monopoly, and the EU agrees with me, hence the DMA.
non-apple headphones work just fine with Apple products. In fact, Apple's bluetooth stack seem to work best among all the portable devices I come across (no random droppings, connects on first try etc.)
My iPhone has plenty of trouble connecting to various devices at times. God forbid it has to manage connecting to my car and my headphones at once. It works OK most of the time, but at least once a week it proves to be a problem.
They have nifty apple-only features, like you can hold them close to the iPhone and they'll pop up and pair with a neat UI.
It's mostly gimicky, but it does give the user the impression that the apple Air pods are higher quality because they have all these things thought out. In actuality, Apple just made it so they're the only ones who can do that.
> How can we quantify the penalty faced by consumers in EU with to increased costs due to regulation?
I really hate that everything has to be seen from the consumers' lens, especially the consumer of luxury goods (I'm talking SUVs and the like, cheap cars exist in Europe).
What if we didn't just look at it from the POV from people who buy or want cars? I don't own a car, nor do I plan to. I have to pay for roads, which I understand to an extent. But why should my life be at risk from people wanting to buy SUVs cheaper?
Edit: Also, looking at "cars" without distinction really just obfuscates the real issue. The most dangerous cars (for pedestrians) are the biggest (and sometimes the fastest) ones. Plus most pedestrians die in cities, not on a Highway. So yeah, if you want to drive an SUV in a dense city, then I'm all for making it 10x more expensive for you, because it makes no sense (to me) and puts me in danger :)
If the ball point pen was responsible for ~40,000 deaths per year (in the USA), and reducing its size by half did not meaningfully diminish its function as a pen for most users… I’d rather not kill an extra 20,000 people a year just to have a bigger pen.
But how many of the 40k deaths are directly attributable to the characteristics being discussed? We can’t go from “twice as likely to kill a kid” to “half of the 40k deaths are kids killed by this thing” without examining the evidence.
(Apparently 30% of th fatalities involve alcohol but we already tried banning that once …)
I'm not sure why you're responding to a measured, factual rate of death with some random weird thing that you just made up.
So ok, I'll do it too: what if reducing the size of a ball point pen by half reduces the rate of death by ball point pens by 0.01%? (Answer: you don't do it, because the benefit to doing so is low, and that measured effect could be well within the margin of error anyway.)
(And my weird made-up number sounds a lot more likely than your weird made-up number.)
The reason I brought it up was because it is not meaningful to only compare relative decrease of deaths without understanding the extent of how many deaths they are responsible for.
If only a few people die due to car accidents and one is much more likely to die of other causes than cars, is it worth making cars that much more expensive to decrease the deaths by a bit?
The regulations in my opinion add up to 20-30% of the car price. And likelihood of death due to a car at an individual level decreases by .01% (maybe).
Imagine you were given two options:
- Car A at $45k USD
- Car B at $35k USD
And you are less likely to die with Car A. Is it super obvious that you will buy Car A? If so why doesn't everyone flock to Volvo cars which lead to ~45% fewer fatalities?
Why is this so obvious to you that this regulation is a good thing? The sibling is implying that I'm trolling or whatever but this is a legitimate question.
Look at injurious car crashes as a fraction of the population rather than in raw numbers. Therein lies the answer.
(And the answer is not to screech about how people are stupid because they don't share your values, prioritization or risk assessment. I shouldn't have to say this, but I feel like I do considering the subject matter)
>Look at injurious car crashes as a fraction of the population rather than in raw numbers. Therein lies the answer.
Elaborate? Are you suggesting that car accidents are not that high to begin with relatively, so it is not worth as much to increase safety only in cars because it may not translate to overall safety to a person?
More or less. The average person isn't gonna get injured in a car crash in their life, let alone in the time they own a particular car. Hence why it's treated as a "nice to have" that people only consider for a purchasing decisions once their other criteria are met. Which is also why you see it most touted when people are buying something that's handily doing what they need and more (SUV for 1 kid, car car for A to B commuting where just about anything will do, etc). People aren't gonna compromise a key requirement for half a star on a rating for something they're unlikely to need.
that's what i have been trying to say!! so why is it so obvious that people should accept increase in car prices with regulations when they don't behave that way when buying cars?
Makes sense. And I'm glad I don't have to make that choice. But as mentioned in my edit, I think that the "low hanging fruit" are still plentiful, so we won't have to think about this for a while (talking about pedestrian deaths).
Currently Zig is the second most "stared" project on Codeberg (1443 stars). The first one is forgejo/forgejo (3154 stars) which is powering Codeberg, and the third one is dnkl/foot terminal emulator (1434). (see https://codeberg.org/explore/repos?q=&only_show_relevant=tru...)
It's always interesting to see big and significant projects moving away from major commercial platforms. Could it be a sign of something new on the horizon?
I mean, just disable the AI bloat features in GitHub. I’ve been using GitHub since 2010 (15 years - holy shit I am old) and it’s still the best. I never understood the mass complaining, though I give GitLab credit for building a massive company and taking it public. When GitLab launched I was like, this is going to fail as a business 100%. I was wrong.
Edit: Funny enough GitLab is down 9% in pre-market and near all-time lows.
The issue with Github is that they never denied feeding ai with private repositories. Gitlab, on the contrary, issued an official statement that they don't.
Ah finally someone coming to the rescue of criminally underrepresented multi-billion dollar companies and their inevitable tactics of building monopolies, because how else do you 10% revenue growth every year. I hear Shell is also in need of some help, maybe you can find a thread on them? /s
But seriously though: why do people argue that „investing money“ leads to „I can do whatever the hell I want to my client base“? Even if this argument were to hold for all future customers, companies change their TOS all the time. Can I ask for all my money that I paid them back, to exit their ecosystem?..
„For next gas station take exit 31“ is not an ad in the sense most people understand ads, just as a „toilet“ sign on a door is not an ad for that toilet. I feel like you are constructing a case of ads that doesn’t really fit the common definition, but maybe I misunderstand.
I really don’t understand how this is being downvoted. Whatever your interpretation of the reasons is, it’s objectively correct to say that democrats lost [1] instead of saying Trump won, even though the outcome is the same. Democrats alienated 19 million voters on a variety of issues, whereas republican turnout was almost the same.
Look, you may fool peoe with your “all Palestinians are terrorists” rhetoric in zionist circles, but I would hope that most other people would be able to see through the propaganda.
Israel has imprisoned people in “administrative detention” with no legal recourse for decades, for all kinds of bullshit reasons. If my home was being taken by settlers, which happens in the West Bank on the daily, I would do more than just throw stones. And it would land me in jail as a “terrorist”.
So you're saying that palestinians are not terrorists, but if you were palestinian, you would become one. That's certainly a way to make a point, I guess.
So your argument is that, in order to not be a terrorist I would have to allow Israeli settlers to steal the homes of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank without fighting back. Yes, if you apply that definition, I would, in fact, be a terrorist.
“Throwing stones kills” said the heavily armed settler laughing, leveling a rifle at my chest. Arabs never lived here. You are just a figment of history’s imagination, and must be expunged. The IDF soldiers standing around laughed as he pulled the trigger.
Almost on weekly basis there are terror attack of west-bank peaceful that are coordinate on civilians, last week 3 older women were murdered on daylight as "innocent west-bank 'peace makers'"...
The different is that one side defend against such evil and brutal attacks, and the other side is cinicly "allow" to conduct them.
For a tech-person I hope you have more critical thinking ability to spot different.
you should be more specifc. this reads as though youre trying to say that israeli government representatives killed some Palestinians in the west bank as part of their occupation and ethnic cleasing campaign, but im not clear that thats what youre intending to say
To be very clear, this only applies to private individuals setting up cameras. The government is very much able to surveil the population to its hearts content [1] (link German). There are plenty of "security" cameras around Berlin, at least.
reply