"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
I guess it doesn't, but it is useful for English pronouns later on. I'm curios what's idiomatic in languages without gendered pronouns. It'd be different if it called out her race.
Unfortunately, Ethereum did infact mutate its chain. Bitcoin never mutated the chain, but once a fork was done to abandon the original chain from a few blocks back, and start mining a new chain from there, thus invalidating some transactions. However Ethereum did something which is essentially a crypto-blasphemy. They reversed a single transaction without a valid signature. Ethereum-Classic is the original chain that still contains that transaction.
The fact that they created a new chain diminishes one of the main characteristics of a blockchain. That it can't be altered.
This has always been my biggest sticking point with cryptocurrencies. It doesn't take into account that sometimes you need to fix a mistake.
Cryptos also have a usability problem. If you forget your login credentials you lose access to your account. If you forgot your credentials at a regular bank, they have multiple avenues for figuring out if you are who you say you are. Eg post etc.
Bitcoin did not break any "technicality". Technically speaking, the chain with most work is to be considered valid. What they did back then was, a bunch of miners got together and created an alternate chain with more work. So it's still technically the correct/longest chain. On the other hand, Ethereum just plain broke the sanctity by basically creating a chain that contains a transaction without a valid signature.
I am sick and tired of this bullshit logic, about how much energy per transaction Bitcoin uses. Bitcoin's blocksize is being forcibly kept low. It can easily be increased 100 MB, if not more, without causing any serious issues. That will increase the number of transactions per second to a thousand. Plus, comparing a Bitcoin transaction to a traditional transaction is like comparing apples and oranges. A Bitcoin transaction is completely different as it is irreversible. That energy consumption is the price we pay to make sure our transactions remain irreversible.
I went into your history and ALL of your comments are for defending Apple on Apple related stories or defending Apple on non-apple related stories. You are clearly an Apple shill. How much are you getting paid?
$0. I'm not an Apple employee and all my comments are not defending Apple. Most of them might be because I only go on HN to discuss programming and Apple.
Interesting, though, that instead of actually arguing any of my points, you want to claim, without any proof, that I'm a shill based on what I like to talk about. Instead of attacking me based on my history, how about actually addressing the points I'm making? Clearly you're unable or unwilling to do so.
Wait, what? You argued that a single app store makes apple devices safer. How does not allowing devs to sell subscriptions on their website help with this arguable safety? Don't bullshit.
> How does not allowing devs to sell subscriptions on their website help with this arguable safety?
By making sure the user has a single channel for dealing with payments and complaints.
Deliveroo did an update their software that wiped out my login settings. They didn't support apple login, so I lost access to my account. They won't recover my email because of a special character in it, and so they continued to charge me for their "plus" service every month, and avoided any emails I tried to send asking to stop (asking me to "log in" to change my payment settings!).
Requiring apps use Apple's channel would have protected me from that experience.
> Don't bullshit.
If you're not trying to be persuaded, why are you arguing?
I'm not bullshitting and I'll use myself as an example. I love the fact that any payments on iOS go through Apple Pay. If anything ever happens to my payment or contact info, I know who to blame. If every developer is able to process transactions and collect my personal info, then every developer is a vector for my payment or account information getting out to the world. I don't know what they do with my info, I don't know who they sell my data to. With Apple, I know the answers to all those questions.
See that's the thing. Apple does NOT prevent developers from taking payment anywhere else, it just prevents developers from advertising it on their Apple app. How is that making the iOS any safer?
You can't make the purchase through the app. Therefore there's no way for fraudulent transactions to be processed through the app. Refunds are done by Apple, subscriptions are done via Apple, and no mention of any external payments are made within the app. That makes iOS safer.
The latest miners are running on 10nm technology. So unless Switzerland can start manufacturing 4-5nm devices right away, what you said is basically impossible. Also, if the Switzerland government by any chance acquires 4-5nm technology, what will keep the miners from doing that too? You would be surprised how deep their pockets are. Well they all paying all of Switzerland's electricity bill, so that might give you an idea.
The Bitcoin "bubble" has "burst" at least 6 times now. Which one were you refering to? Every time it recovers and reaches another all time high in a couple of years. Being the nascent but potentially world changing technology, it might take a few years to realize its true market cap. And along the way, we will see a few pumps and dumps. Its just normal.
Bic Camera in Japan at one point used it as their "point" system. Unfortunately you had to have one of their wallets, but essentially if you bought stuff with them and you had registered for the bitcoin rewards, they would give you some bitcoins. You could also transfer your own bitcoins into the wallet. You could then buy stuff at the store with it at some nominal rate. I thought about buying a computer with bitcoins because when you could still mine with CPUs, I heated my apartment mining bitcoins (then I lost interest ;-) ). Honestly, this is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping bitcoin would turn into. When Japan outlawed crypto currencies, the Bic Camera thing disappeared (or it's possible it disappeared earlier... I wasn't paying much attention).
I see you choose on completely ignoring the Tether fraud and those that came before that makes Bitcoin's price entirely artificial and way higher than it should.
An alternative form of payment in countries with hyperinflated currencies, a means to make fast international payments (far faster than Swift), an investment (debatable) vehicle that exists outside the control of the finance sector, certainly an upward social mobility tool for many miners in developing countries, and a general store of wealth vehicle (in no way different to gold in this regard).
How is all of this possible when the network is barely able to support half dozen transactions a second? It's not even enough to cover one shopping mall, let alone some "countries" or the whole planet.
I didn't say it could run a country's currency supply. I said it was an alternative to a country's hyperinflated currency, and it would be one of many. What normally happens on the ground in such a situation is that the average person will use an array of different currencies that are accepted in their environment in order to make up for the country's standard (so in Zimbabwe for example, people will use a mix of the USD, ZAR and a number of other currencies in their day-to-day lives).
Bitcoin is just another alternative. Yes you're not buying a loaf of bread at the corner store with it, but it's definitely useable (and is used) for other types of payments.
I'm referring to the most recent one that I believe most are familiar with: when Bitcoin reached ATH of $20,000 and then plummeted to $4,000 [ I think that was the lowest... ]
I'm not against BTC, and I'm not saying it's dead, I'm just pointing out the obvious crash that recently happened :^)
So far only Android phones are reported as having the software installed on them by border guards. There are no reports of this being done to iPhones. Those are the facts.
Well, they're facts about news reports. Always good to remember that what we know about what's going on in some other part of the world is what people tell us.
I understand that and I think the people downvoting do too. It doesn’t justify knowingly and explicitly stating something as a fact based only on speculation.
I think if news of that got out, the US government would not be happy with one of their companies being complicit in signing Chinese malware. China gets away with a lot of stuff because companies can write it off to spies or other infiltration. Outright approval of it wouldn't go so well, especially after the Huawai affair.
The US government failed to twist their arms. Very unlikely that China has a lot of power over them. Given how many people they employ in China, they might have actually power over China.
Conversely, they depend heavily on Chinese manufacturing -- for something like 70% of their production and also rely on Chinese markets for a significant portion of their profits. When Xi comes to Tim Cook with the options: "lose 70% of your manufacturing and 50% of your sales or let us install this app" it's not really an easy choice.
Lol, fanboys downvoting my comment, even though it is totally possible. Even my last comment 28 days ago, which was incidentally against Apple but factually true, was also downvoted. Looks like hacker news is being plagued with fanboys who can't take any valid criticism of their dear Apple Inc.
Edit: when I wrote this comment, my original comment was at -4 points.
It’s not the same. These are border guards easily putting spyware on Android phones, since it’s a feature of Android (to load programs). With iOS, you’d have to jailbreak it first, which isn’t a trivial thing to do “while you wait” at the border.
I mean, if you wanted a hidden, non-standard launchd type app, you'd have to modify the filesystem, install it, they'd need to create special tooling to do so, and modify the updaters to preserve it across an iOS update, etc. All without anyone at Apple speaking out.
Apple refused to create an unlock tool for the US government that was a one-off, to create spyware for China seems like they last thing they'd do. Could they? I guess. Once detected - and it definitely would be (as this was), or leaked by employees - Apple would get bowled over by buyers and the stock market. It's just not in their interests. Their current business model is selling privacy.
Then we need a story like this article confirming that do this too. So far the evidence points to “no”, but that isn’t enough. The transparency report from Apple needs to report this as well.
Apple is just gonna remotely ship it to you. You can't do business in China without bending over to government. If they want malware there then there will be one.
These biases are in the eye of the beholder. People with opposite feelings about Apple (or whatever the corp of the moment is) see exactly the opposite bias.
This is totally incorrect. If you have an app on Apple store and sell subscripttions through your website, or other means, Apple forces you to sell the same subscriptions through their store.
I use Spotify, FreeAgent, Toggl, Zoom, Pipedrive, Asana and Trello (plus Basecamp previously) on my iOS devices - and pay for all of those through the respective websites without any option to pay in the App Store.
(Edit: I know Spotify used to have an option for it but they dropped that and I never used it anyway)
But then, the poem will be 124 words (by changing "thirty two" to "eighteen"), so we will have to change 125 to 124. Then, he will be able to say "I love you" an exactly 18 times. So now we are 3 words shorter (by removing "and a third"). So it comes 121. With 121 words, he will be able to say "I love you" exactly 17 times. So, there you go. Change "one sixty seven" to "one twenty one", and "thirty two and a third times" to "seventeen times".
It's actually "thirty-two" which, by the rules established in the poem, counts as one word only. It works with 125 words by chance. The author missed an opportunity for a neat hack.
