That’s interesting. I’ve gone to chipotle around once or twice a month for two decades now, and with the exception of their lemonades I’ve only had something unavailable maybe 3-4 times. Regional variation I guess.
Check out r/chipotle - maybe it’s an echo chamber there but it’s a major problem with mobile orders where you don't have an opportunity to sub an ingredient that’s out of stock. Depending on the store, chipotle mobile orders are a “fun” gamble - chipotle needs to fix quality standards across stores at least in my region!
Chipotle is one of the very few businesses I have ever left a google review for because the complaint seems extremely simple to fix. Just stock your store and hire enough people to prep the food!
It's a ridiculous comparison. How do you calculate "more widely" usage? I use Messages for all SMS messages. I've had maybe 5 group chats in Messages over the last 10 years, all groups are organized in WhatsApp or Signal. So what is more widely used in my case?
Messages is the default SMS app on iPhones. 130M iPhones in the US does mean there are 130M Messages users. So what? Some teenagers are angsty because of green bubbles? FFS do we not have bigger problems to deal with?
I don't think the core motivation in this discussion (or the monetary motivation from Beeper) is due solely to "angsty teenagers." Clearly there are adults out there, with money to spend, who would prefer to send an iMessage to an iPhone owner rather than an SMS message.
While I find it annoying to constantly hear from my mother and other members of my family how messages from me are "a hassle" or "always getting missed" or "never show up in the group chat", I am not willing to spend the money on something like Beeper. But some people are spending the money, it looks like there is a market there.
In my bubble I switched everyone to Signal. I acknowledge that this is an anecdote and don't propose this as a solution. However, complaining about features in different apps is even less of a solution.
Messaging is done extremely differently in the US. All those group chats on Whatsapp or Signal would be done in iMessage because most Americans don't have Whatsapp or Signal, and Android users would likely just be left out of them.
I do live in the US. All my friends are on Signal and WhatsApp.
There are 140M FB Messenger users in the US, more than iPhone users.
This discussion is baffling to me. People buy devices that have exclusive content and features all the time. PS5 has a ton of exclusive games. So sometimes a group of friends is divided: some people have Xbox, others have PS5. Also some have no console at all. And some people will make fun of others, some people will get bullied because of that. This issue will not magically go away if we force Apple to "equalize" the chat bubble color. Some teenagers will still get bullied.
IMHO, it's unlikely anyone with an iPhone uses it "purely for SMS usage." That would mean we have an iPhone owner who only receives SMS from services, only sends messages to people with an Android device, has gone through the trouble to deliberately disable iMessage messages or lacks a data plan of any kind.
I agree with you. The problem is that we conflate SMS and iMessage usage in the Messages app. Most people do use Messages for SMS-like messages (meaning not for exclusive iMessage features). E.g. looking at my message list: at least 40% of messages I receive are alerts, payment confirmations, appointment reminders, etc. These are SMS messages in terms of their purpose, even if some have the blue bubble and whatnot. Messages is a popular app in the US, but what we need to look at is how popular it is for specifically iMessage-exclusive features, not as an SMS client.
Since I’ve moved out of the US and started using Line (the message service of choice in my country of residence) I have no idea why the US market continues to cope with SMS.
iMessage is confusing. I get constant random authorization requests on my iPad because it got un-synced. Messages never come through to my Mac either.
Line is nowhere near perfect, and the app does have ads, but it works, it’s fast, and encrypted. People even use it for calling. I’ve literally never gave my phone number to someone for communication. Not even my coworkers.
It’s so prominent that data only cellphone plans are actually usable-and cheap.
I’m not saying we should all use Line (I would prefer Matrix). What I’m saying is there are so many communication platforms out there that are way better than S/MMS.
I started looking around, I can find charts that show messaging app market share on iOS but none of them include Apple Messages. For sure Apple doesn't share these numbers, it looks like no one else has gone through the trouble to collect them.
They do supply the number of active iOS devices, though it doesn't necessarilly mean that they are all active iMessage users. 136 million iPhones in the US, ~140 million active Facebook Messenger users in the the US.
We can assume that there are close to zero iPhone owners who don't use Messages, considering that almost half of the US population has an iPhone. This calculation fails to account for the critical aspect: Messages is the default SMS app, it's not just a group chat. Comparing it to WhatsApp is just incorrect.
If it's the default app and all iPhone users actively use it, and FB messenger beats it by 4 million active users, then your argument hasn't really got a leg to stand on, especially given that the market share for iPhone in the US is ~53%.
My argument is only strengthened by your data?.. Messages app is the app every iPhone user uses to send and receive SMS messages. It's not about some exclusive features, blue vs green bubbles, etc. It's just SMS messages.
So just citing the number (130M) means nothing in this debate. WhatsApp or Signal or FM Messenger are not SMS apps, so we can't just look at the number of active users and make conclusions.
How many angsty teenagers must have an iPhone because of the color of their chat bubble? That's the number that (apparently) matters.
No. That’s appealing to emotion, it’s a fallacy and has no place in a sensible discussion.
As for SMS, I can say with a high degree of confidence that deliberate SMS sending is very low outside the US. Besides, the feature being spoofed, and therefore discussed is iMessage, which categorically is not SMS/MMS. Bringing it up is introducing a strawman.
> therefore discussed is iMessage, which categorically is not SMS/MMS
That's not the reality though, correct? When I send a message to a friend using the Messages app it's being sent as an iMessage if both of us use an iPhone. I don't care what the format is, my intention is to send an SMS. So you can't use this as evidence of popularity of iMessages.
Just looking at my message list: at least 40% of my messages are alerts, reminders, payment confirmations, etc. Are you saying in Europe people get those via Signal?
No, I’m saying it’s irrelevant what businesses are sending you. And since SMS is fundamentally limited to 160 ASCII characters, I doubt the majority cares. Getting hung up on a default SMS client feels like a waste of energy. I get that, as a convenience, you’d want one location for all your messaging needs. For an alternative view, I like the separation that multiple apps provide. I’m not against iMessage being on other platforms either. What I am against is the pitchforks and bullshit reasoning around why this is anti-consumer/trust. The whole polemic is just bullshit.
Edit: in fact I'm annoyed at myself for adding to the pointlessness of what amounts to petty nerd-rage. I apologise to everyone...
> I get that, as a convenience, you’d want one location for all your messaging needs. For an alternative view, I like the separation that multiple apps provide.
Wait wait... now I am totally confused. I don't mind the separation of my messaging needs. In fact, I use Messages only for SMS (or SMS-like) messages, and WhatsApp and Signal for everything else.
> What I am against is the pitchforks and bullshit reasoning around why this is anti-consumer/trust. The whole polemic is just bullshit.
That is what I am saying :) All this debate about bubble colors, anti-consumerism, monopolies, etc is a waste of time, we have much bigger problems to deal with.
Using Python with Bazel is fairly common at big SV companies -- they use rules_python with it (https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python). It does rely on pip for grabbing dependencies but handles building modules and can integrates well with rules_docker/rules_oci for building container images from your code.
I honestly don't know why anyone would use that... as in what does Bazel do better than virtually anything else that can provide this functionality. But, I used to be an ops engineer in a big company which wanted everything to be Maven, regardless of whether it does it well or not. So we built and deployed with Maven a lot of weird and unrelated stuff.
Not impossible, but not anything I'd advise anyone to do on their free time.
Specifically wrt' the link you posted, if you look here: https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python/blob/main/python/... it says that only pure Python wheels are supported, but that's also a lie, they don't support half of the functionality of pure Python wheels.
So, definitely not worth using, since lots of functionality is simply not there.
Even if it were the same guy, wouldn't it be evidence that the NSA did NOT invent it, since that source is a cryptographer not associated with the NSA?
He shows evidence that NSA employees were aware of this guy’s work and implying they may have made up a similar name. I don’t think that’s racist. The Satoshi pseudonym had to come from somewhere, no?
Fair enough, forgot about that one... At least for EOS, that's a blockchain, and the token has a utility unlike XRP. Also in defence to the EOS foundation, which to me acts in good faith, it's block.one (the company at the origin of EOS) which pocketed the whole $4b
I think it's both -- I do think he's against remote work (remember his remarks at Tesla "pretend to work somewhere else": https://www.forbes.com/sites/annakaplan/2022/06/01/musk-says...) but also it's a great way to cheaply get rid of a lot of employees who were told they could WFH forever.
I don't see how an exception type defined at the throw site would be significantly different than using the text of the exception to convey the type. Callers wouldn't know to expect it either way, so how would they be able to handle it effectively?
