Journalistic integrity comes and goes. The Washington Post seemed like a beacon of truthfulness when Trump attacked the free press and they adopted the slogan “Democracy dies in darkness.” Recently they have forgone truthfulness in favor of “truthiness”. Their hypocrisy on fact-checking Sanders and the Times’ calling him “Other” when he was in the lead were very telling.
Journalists with corporate sponsors are just advertisers by another name.
Ok, but please don't post angry low-information rants to HN. I'm not saying you owe major media sites or Google better, but you owe this community better if you're commenting here.
There are good companies, but perhaps not good large companies (i.e. "no one got rich by being the good guy").
Also, perhaps more importantly, there are better companies (i.e. even if no one were to be perfect, you can still aim for the best).
I’m personally on the fence with this issue, and using the term ‘fascism’ in this case is extremely pejorative. But...
People calling for laws to regulate things like this bothers me. Where does it lead? As the GP posited, there is competition. Apple ‘banning’ you from repairing a device is purely commercial.
The only things actually preventing you from repairing your device are really scarcity of parts and warranty issues. I understand why they disable Touch ID on 3rd party parts for instance. It makes sense for both parties (Apple and end user). Should there be a 3rd party program in this instance? That’s a commercial decision.
As for Warranties; if you attempt a repair and bodge the job, why should any company be liable for that? Yes, repair it, but at full cost. If it’s irrecoverable, tough shit on the person that initially attempted the repair or the vendor should have the right to refuse. If it’s out of warranty; the owner/repairer should pay for the work. A better argument to be had at this point is the minimum warranty length. For electronic devices 3-5 years seems reasonable. Accidental damage cost should not be covered by this. That is what insurance is for.
The real motive behind this push as far as I can see is the tinkerer or modder movement. That’s fine, but be honest. There are trade offs to be had on both sides.
> This is written to mislead people who do not know the relevant background information.
How dare you put words in my mouth. I have no skin in this whatsoever. It was written as a statement of fact as I see it. The motive behind the scarcity is not something I was discussing, and is, as I said a commercial one. Legislating that a 3rd party parts market must be catered for is potentially a slippery slope.
As for anti-capitalist? This is right out of the capitalist playbook! False scarcity leads to control of the market place, which leads to capital, by way of higher repair parts or increased revenue in terms of new device sales instead of repairs.
First of all, the "free market" is a fairy tale. It has never existed. States have been shaping their economies since the beginning of civilization. The very existence of modern corporations and their special rights of limited liability is a radical dispensation from government.
And secondly, where do you (or do you at all) draw the line on what sort of ban constitutes fascism? (Setting aside the fact that corporations have historically loved the stability of fascist states.) Is regulated overtime fascism? Workplace safety laws? Child labor laws?
Apple is a creature of the state. We wouldn't need laws requiring their phones to be repairable if there weren't already laws prohibiting you from running iOS on non-Apple hardware or using non-Apple app stores on Apple hardware etc.
Having none of it is a valid option. Dumping the DMCA in the bin and allowing anybody to transfer their copy of iOS to a phone made by Samsung or Purism when their iPhone dies would solve it too.
What we can't have is the laws that favor the corporation and not the laws that favor their customers. That's an asymmetry; it has to be both or neither. So have your ideological debate, but we either need more laws or fewer -- the status quo is unreasonable.
I wasn’t lying, I commented when that was the only comment with upvotes and the only comment here was also upvoted. My point was true at that point in time.
This is less about the article linked by Yann, but more about what Yann writes. He basically uses the argument made in the article, and adopts it to make a similar argument about AI. And that this argument about AI is the interesting content here (although the linked article is also interesting).
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. The media wanted a live, reality TV-style event and didn’t get it. Last night was supposed to be huge for ad revenue and now they’re out for blood. Imagine waiting patiently for conclusive results in every state. How are they supposed to run ads if people aren’t glued to the screen?
What’s bad for the 24-hour news cycle is good for Democracy.
I'm sure they're happy enough that folks are refreshing their newsfeeds in suspense, and everybody is tripping over themselves to get a live-updated-page about results
The problem isn't that people are believing the (not yet debunked) conspiracy theory. The problem is that a clear, verifiable, conflict of interest exists, this is a top public concern with really high stakes, and the app in question should have been open source.
The "rigging" possibility is just a maybe on top of that.
It does. There are types in the standard library for non-zero numbers[1]. While it would involve writing a wrapper, Rust does provide for customizing the behavior of operators[2]. The example implementation for Div (the "/" operator) even shows how to make a type that panics when trying to divide by zero. One could also return a Result so that trying to divide by zero can fail gracefully.
You point out that Netflix has usage data as if you have access to that data. Some people like ten-hour reality TV binges and some people like thoughtful content. Netflix is just mirroring cable TV. Since Netflix uses product placement, especially in its age-targeted content, quantity of viewing time is more profitable than quality.
Journalists with corporate sponsors are just advertisers by another name.