Just to add a little bit of context, when I hit the same problem today the flow offered me the option to scan my driving license or 'national id card' (whatever that is - we don't have those in the UK)
So despite the claims in the article, it's not credit card centric.
However, they did not accept my passport as a scannable ID, and so luckily I had a credit card somewhere that I have used recently for a single large purchase otherwise I'd be stuffed, as I don't drive
Some people discussing how Trump/US could intervene to calm this situation - why would they? Presumably part of the US state would very much like access to this data, and with the security services of the US and the UK sharing lots of their intelligence (and with other five eyes nations) this would mean the UK becomes a one-stop-shop for gathering data on your own citizens without the need to trouble your own domestic legal system.
The UK's demand for access to _all_ apple users, not just UK citizens (a la China) indicates to me that it's at least possible this action has the backing of the US (though, obviously, there is not evidence for this - it's just hypothetical)
with respect, I disagree that the function here is to show information. the (primary) function here is to advertise Stripe, and they obviously believe the aesthetic will increase the chance that viewers of the advert with share it with their friends and coworkers, increasing the effectiveness if the advert.
if this was a page they provided to all their customers, all year round, as their means of monitoring their own sales then I agree that this is a terrible design. but they have a fairly utilitarian dashboard UI for that function.
The design isn't crashing their browser, the implementation of the design is. You could argue that the design is simply not implementable with current technology to serve the widest array of users (this is doubtful), and possibly Stripe's marketing team made a judgement that they just didn't care about that - but you seem to be laying quite a lot at a designer's door there. I would guess that they are prioritising standing out to a niche audience of developers with expensive laptops over casting a wide net, which would be reasonable for this kind of campaign. Perhaps what you dislike is the marketing campaign and it's goals, rather than the nebulous "bad design" of the page?
And, for the record, I clicked the link because it was at the top of HN and I was bored. How did it get to the top of HN? because a lot of people saw it and thought it was cool. If they took a more utilitarian approach, would that have happened? I guess we just don't know.
So what if it was a designer who acted on the whims of a marketing team? The criticism was directed at the design not at a person. Regardless of their intended audience the site is still representative of the point I wanted to make about modern day design.
And no, not everyone is clicking on all the front page links of the same score (you included) so your argument is kinda weak and something must have caught your attention about the title.
My point was that it seems you are critiquing the design of the page as if it's purpose is to display sales data, and I was suggesting that it's purpose is not to display sales data, but actually to simply advertise Stripe. When judged by this outcome, the design is (arguably, it seems) more successful.
Regardless, I find no joy or purpose in talking to someone that tells me I'm incorrect when I tell them my motivations for doing something. It betrays a certain ignorance on your part. I think let's just leave the thread there. Have a good rest of your day.
Even if the purpose was to advertise Stripe, the ad has very evident intention to provide value to the viewer of the ad, which is to provide information, so the purpose is not singular; and yet both its intended purposes are not being done very well.
I think that what really happened here is that you are upset because you found yourself arguing for a position that you can’t rationally and convincingly defend, which is a position that no one forced you to maintain in the first place. You should know that there’s also no joy in dealing with someone like that.
No one is disputing that this is a new standard. The dispute is that Apple wouldn’t support it because it would take away from some hypothetical App Store revenue. Apple
already supports the existing standard showing the argument doesn’t hold.
Article & spec mention privacy issues re: connecting users to payments, that seemingly would allow someone to pay for an app subscription without going through the store, since the payment receiver gets user details
This is possible already with Apple-supported Payment Request API (and even without those APIs, like just logging into a website). This is how Netflix on iOS works, which is explicitly supported (though with stupid cavets) by Apple.
We use Teams for group calls at work, but Slack for all other messaging. This is because Slack's video calling feature has always been a pain, particularly for our Linux team members. It could have improved, but we moved to Teams for calls so I wouldn't know. Because I only open teams when we have a meeting and then immediately close it, my experience is generally positive. I _wish_ I could just use the browser based version to save opening the slow-slow-slow-to-open desktop app but: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/safari-browser-su... says I need to disable cross-site tracking which is, frankly, an insane ask.
I think that sort of poor engineering is a sign that the team behind teams must have very limited resources. It's hard to prioritise a desktop browser with such small market share, especially when a work around of 'just use the app' is there - but this is hardly a lean startup here.
There's no indication anywhere that this works for UK customers - other than some logos part way down the page for Ocado, Waitrose and Sainsbury's (all UK only AFAIK) and there's no context to the logos...
As a potential US customer, I was also a bit put off by this. Do you support all US zip codes? What kind of recipes would I be able to order if I sign up, assuming the availability is partly based on my delivery address?
The free trial requires a credit card, I don't want to give you my credit card without an assurance that you have food I want to pay for, or that you'll be able to deliver to me.
Thanks for the feedback! Very helpful for us to think about how we can showcase our service before the sign-up event and remove the uncertainty related to location.
Do you mind me asking: in terms of food, what would be most important to you before signup? Is it to see the quality of the recipes, or rather a test if we can make good recommendations based on your specific preferences and needs?
Yes, but as long as a cached version is still returned at the edge (while the real content might have changed), the ETag won't help.
It can only save you from unnecessarily downloading content you already have - in case it didn't change.
And when the content is updated you return different etag and the content is refreshed. Your system should have either distributed cache or a way for the edge to detect cache invalidations or for you to manually invalidate the cache on the edge.
As other commenters have mentioned, in fact it has functionality specific for this purpose. That is part of the underlying reason for my question: it often feels like the people pushing for graphql adoption are not aware what http is capable of out of the box.
In what way is 'cancel culture' different from 'the opinions of, and respect held by, other people'?
If you do something, or say something, and when I hear about it I feel less respect for you then I had done previously - is that cancel culture? Am I cancelling you?
If you're a musician or film maker or author who I appreciate, but it's then revealed that privately you have expressed racist views, and now I feel less respect for you and decide not to listen to your music or watch your films or read your books - am I cancelling you? Am I morally obligated to keep supporting you financially?
Fear over being "cancelled", in my opinion, is simply fear of a boycott. It's nothing new or scary.
> this is dumb ... is this really the place to grind the diversity and unionization axe
> race to the bottom for wokeness
It's a workplace dispute that has become public because the show they produce is critiquing another workplace that had a similar dispute. The hypocrisy involved there is the reason for this being reported so widely. Every workplace has a dispute at some point and sometimes these disputes result in people moving within or away from the company. The parties at Gimlet involved surely could see the parallels between the story and themselves, but didn't address this publicly in the first episode so it strikes me that they either hoped it wouldn't come up or didn't feel it was hypocritical, both of which feel naive and this result would have been avoided if they just addressed this obviously-forthcoming controversy head-on.
But sure, paint this up as "woke-millienials-coming-to-cancel-your-life-choices" if it makes you feel better. That's not what's happening, but it sounds like maybe you need it to be.
Not sure if this is true wherever you're from, but here in the UK unions are very commonplace all over different industries and have been a recognised part of society for quite some time now. The same with our laws on racial discrimination in the workplace.
Not sure what your (or any) definition of 'woke' is, but I gathered it was a fairly new phenomenon that is often used as an excuse to belittle people who hold different views to your own (see also: 'political correctness') - I hadn't realised that my 60-something union-rep father was so woke! I'll call and let him know!
"Woke" is "Political correctness gone mad" for people that don't want to appear like they're recycling decades-old memes about how it's okay - nay GOOD - to be abusive.
that would require a coherent definition of what "wokeness" is. From my perspective it's a catch-all term which in most contexts could be replaced with "the left" or "social-justice-warriors" or "young people"
In the context of this thread, it's being used to describe people who want to fight for the formation of a union and against racial discrimination in the workplace.
If someone is on the other side of that argument it must be for one of two reasons; either they are anti-union (which, as a personal belief it is their right to be, but they don't have the right to limit others from forming a union) or they are pro racial discrimination in the workplace.
If I met someone that was either of those things, I would lose some respect for that person. Apologies for the "cancellation".
> If I met someone that was either of those things, I would lose some respect for that person. Apologies for the "cancellation".
To me, this is the entire problem with the current discourse situation in the US. Everyone keeps focusing on people instead of arguments. Everything is about labeling people and what they are, so they can dismiss or embrace them, and people are rarely that one-sided.
Even here, I don't see people arguing for or against unions, everyone is arguing about whether Vogt is a "good person" or not, and ultimately that doesn't matter. If he's against unions, I disagree, I like unions. That doesn't mean he's a terrible person, presumably he has other opinions that form his personality, and I can hopefully evaluate those on their merits.
Ok, but you do need to be accountable for your opinions. If you’re talking about the need for redemption that I 100% agree that people change and need the opportunity afforded to them to be able to change.
But if Person A asks Person B for help fighting discrimination and Person B says ‘nah’ then my opinion of Person B will change. I don’t feel I’m wrong for that.
If Person B then goes and makes a podcast calling out Person C, D and E for doing the exact same thing then Person B can expect quite a few others to change their opinion of them also
Okay but so what? Why do I have to have an opinion of PJ Vogt? I can have an opinion about whether I like his podcast or not, but what he does in his workplace concerns his coworkers.
Beyond a vague "we should condone X and condem Y because we want to encourage X-doers and discourage Y-doers", there's no reason for us to care what PJ Vogt does, and even this level of condemnation seems way overblown to me for someone that just decided not to help someone else out (not even hinder them, just not help them).
If people showed half the passion about holding their politicians accountable as they do for random people who did stuff in their lives, society would be in a much better place. I wonder if these pitchfork crowds are at least partially a reaction to people feeling powerless to effect actual change via the democratic process. Sort of the old joke about the drunk man looking for his keys under the streetlight because "this is where the light is".
That looks very appealing - I'm an Apple Music subscriber, so having the option to play in Apple Music alongside Spotify would be handy - is the project Open Source?
So despite the claims in the article, it's not credit card centric.
However, they did not accept my passport as a scannable ID, and so luckily I had a credit card somewhere that I have used recently for a single large purchase otherwise I'd be stuffed, as I don't drive