To the extent he is speaking only for himself and not making any kind of larger point, I'm not sure why it's on the front page of Hacker News.
To the extent he's making a point such as "I gained nothing from this experience" or that he's asking for advice or thoughts, I think some of the thoughts -- such as working toward your strengths rather than through your weaknesses -- are interesting.
When faced with an oppressive law, people are entitled to do everything within their power to deal with it. Changing the law itself is certainly a great solution when practical, but it is not always practical.
Even metabolically innocuous substances can be dangerous in quantities sufficient for violent external application e.g. when being dropped[1] on one's head.
What do we call vitamin D surfeit? Arichitis?
[1] Although non-volatile storage these days is a choking hazard, in the earliest days of computing a couple of megabytes would have been fatal if their cabinet were to fall on someone.
(No lang belta this comment: Belters both have more pressing bone issues from life near the float, and get vitamin supplements from the pastes for their kibble, so unless the Belt somehow has universities somewhere and they're premeds cramming, they have absolutely no concept of rickets.)
Not really sure your point. Are you saying that there is no upper safe limit for B12 for all people?
>...Case details: A young woman was treated with multiple daily doses of 1 mg of cyanocobalamin for severe pernicious anemia. After a total dose of 12 mg, she developed acne, palpitations, anxiety, akathisia, facial ruddiness, headache, and insomnia. She improved two weeks after stopping the drug. There were no sequelae nor complications.Discussion: Although these symptoms of cobalamin toxicity were unexpected and unusual, the case reminds us that the administration of any drug is not entirely safe.
$50K is kind of cheap actually. I've seen people pay $200K and more for basic CRUD websites with a little extra this or that.
In fairness, if your web app does more than CRUD, or if you expect it will in the future, then PHP and jQuery wouldn't be my first choice. I'm very familiar with how much of a mess an app can become when pursued that way -- a nasty soup of callbacks and conflicting states. As tooling around React improves -- and it's already quite good -- it will be easier to cost-effectively write a React CRUD site.
If you just want a CRUD site that works, and you want it fast, a Rails site with scaffolding will probably give that to you in an hour or two -- with almost the whole hour being spent thinking about your data model.
I started programming on an amateur basis in 1984, professionally in 1997. I'm 52 now. My experience is that coding has become more and more interesting and pleasant. In the early days, I had to deal with under-powered languages that either couldn't do certain things or that made them very difficult. Then I encountered languages that were much more pleasant to use, but had other problems such as not scaling well to team-level development -- sometimes even I couldn't figure out what I had been doing. Languages are clearer now, they make thinking about problems easier, and while this issue has not disappeared, it's less bad for me than it used to be.
For me, tools, including languages, do matter. I can well imagine that programming in Java would be soul-deadening (although Java is still better than some languages of the past).
Incidentally, I am not dunking on languages of the past. Lisp has been around for a long time, as has Smalltalk or Haskell or ML. Many of those languages were not accessible to anyone without a mainframe or expensive workstation. This situation has improved greatly in the past decades, which to me is another reason to prefer coding today versus the past.
Obviously, most of us are not able to cherry-pick our toolset for work. We use whatever our employer says to use, or whatever the demands of our project require. This may be part of why many people find coding to be an uninspiring experience. Also, the problems that people work on might be dull, it's hard to get motivated about a basically tedious problem.
Last, it's worth acknowledging that some people just don't love coding all that much. It's hard to imagine doing really well at something you don't deeply enjoy day in and day out. And your passion can change over time: you might really enjoy something in one part of your life, and not derive much joy from it at another part.
I don't see that at all. The value Apple supposedly provides is safety. If consumers want the safety that Apple offers, they can continue to limit themselves to Apple's App Store offerings, while those who don't value safety as highly can use a different app store. Just because you value something in a certain way does not mean everyone else should be forced to adhere to those same values.
> If consumers want the safety that Apple offers, they can continue to limit themselves to Apple's App Store offerings, while those who don't value safety as highly can use a different app store.
I'm not even convinced that those who do value safety as highly wouldn't be better off with other stores. For example, Google Play has the actual Tor Browser, with all of the anti-fingerprinting work they've put into it, which isn't available on iOS because it isn't Safari. I think F-Droid does a better job of keeping out malware than Google or Apple, because by their nature they're more selective of what they put in. The platform's own store is going to be under a lot of pressure to include e.g. the Facebook app, whereas F-Droid is happy to not. And there is value in that to the user who places a high value on safety and security.
When you allow additional app stores, you encourage companies--like, say, Epic Games--to convince people who do not understand the ramifications or the threats involved with opening up past a rigorous review process to do so. And Epic isn't going to be following behind for the newly-credulous when they pick up another one and it's full of dangerous shitware.
Somebody who wants to not use the App Store can buy an Android device. It's fine. It's fine.
This is a really easy problem to solve - add a scary sign and/or void the warranty when a user decides they want to use an alternative app store. Then they at least have the option - and if they take it and suffer, they're the only one to blame. There's absolutely no collateral damage among users, and this feature would not meaningfully weaken security (if implemented properly) - "the user could do something dumb that only affects them" is not reduced security.
"This user just gave a third party their entire contact list" certainly does harm other people.
"This user just had their entire camera roll exfiltrated" certainly does harm other people.
These are social devices. Their users are, by and large, non-technical and incurious. Expecting them to not just click past the "scary sign", and so condition to do it again and again, so they can play Fortnite is a level of lack of understanding that borders on incredible.
...neither of those attacks you gave are unique to smartphones. Someone can leak personal information through any number of other channels - for instance, entering someone else's personal information into a website that send out emails for a group party invitation.
> Expecting them to not just click past the "scary sign", and so condition to do it again and again, so they can play Fortnite is a level of lack of understanding that borders on incredible.
That's not an excuse. This is bad behavior. It doesn't matter if it's common, or expected - it's wrong, and their responsibility for correcting - not Apple's, and especially not at the freedom of other users who have nothing to do with these idiots. If this behavior is normal, then we need to make it not normal, not continue to compensate for their ineptitude. Fix problems, don't avoid them.
They did fix the actual problem here: the complete intractability, to the point where your dismissal reads as at best impossible optimism, of expecting users to secure their devices when given the opportunity to get a sick screensaver or a game.
I appreciate the fix. And I don’t want to be hectored by bad actors to fuck up my phone for their profit margin.
Buy Android if you do. That “freedom” is right there for you. I used to buy Android when I thought I cared about sideloading; I don’t, so I don’t. Do likewise!
Possible credulous users cannot be the one-size-fits-all excuse for blocking the freedoms of everyone. There are many ways to mitigate any conceivable concern without abrogating the freedom of a phone owner to run the software they wish on their own device.
The arguments are well-repeated by now, but your comment is analogous to saying if I buy a Ford, I can only fill it with Ford gas. It's OK to have laws that prevent and forbid that because it's not good for the people.
This isn't really an option if you actually want iOS apps. It's an all-or-nothing play by Apple: accept all our rules, including the ones that greatly limit you, or get none of the benefits of iOS, including the large collection of high-quality apps. And the option of jailbreaking really isn't an option either. Apple does its best to prevent jailbreaking: they'd stop it outright if they could. This is their way of keeping that market unpleasant, small, and marginal.
The argument is that that approach is anti-competitive and unfair, especially since Apple itself gets a large cut of app sales.
I'm not coming down hard on either side, just yet. But I don't like the feel of this sort of lock-in, and almost no one would question the use of a term like "lock-in." Some lock-in is surely legal, even if almost always unpleasant. But it's only a hop, skip and a jump to full-fledged antitrust.
You go to Target looking to buy a Walmart-brand bottle of bleach. Is that anti-competitive?
Heading out but you pick up a few PC games. By the way, Target was paid to put those up on the shelf.
Grab a Sony Playstation gift card. They get a percentage of that as well.
At checkout, you sign up of the Target bank card save 10%. They get a nice initial chunk from that and the bank running that card pays a monthly percent to Target for sending them over their customer.
(don't look into the publishing companies' tactics cause that will send you over the edge)
1. Did they legally acquire the books they scanned?
2. Are they only allowing one subscriber at a time to check out/read the book?
If so, then they are doing exactly what libraries do. To argue that there's some fundamental difference between a physical book and an electronic book is exactly why people hate the music industry, and if the publishing industry tries to go in the same direction, they'll get the same results.
Sure, maybe everyone is an ungrateful SOB who doesn't appreciate you. Or, maybe you personally are a very unpleasant person to have in any position of power, and that's why moderation was so very unpleasant for you that you quit. I don't need to know much about you to know which alternative is more likely.
To the extent he's making a point such as "I gained nothing from this experience" or that he's asking for advice or thoughts, I think some of the thoughts -- such as working toward your strengths rather than through your weaknesses -- are interesting.