It’s a law that establishes no measurable compliance guidelines, while providing absolutely no limitations on what the EU can decide counts as a violation retroactively. It’s basically “We’re not going to tell you what we want you to do. You need to guess what we want you to do, and fuck you if you guess wrong.”
And it's a law which was crafted with the intent that it apply to a small number of specific companies. How Apple is supposed to comply is hardly an unexpected question.
I mean, this thread has itself very clearly turned into some crypto-fetishist fan fiction, completely departed from reality. I guess it’s just what came to mind.
You nailed the term I didn’t know I was looking for, that’s exactly it! As a fantasy I’ve thought about creating a secret identity and have researched how to keep it absolutely safe. This is very hard and you can spend quite a bit of time designing ever elaborate schemes.
Ok, that was the first time I heard the phrase ( recreational paranoia ) and I am now lost in a sea of links. Can you elaborate on it? It sounds fascinating to me from context alone.
Meanwhile, my company halved our sick time a couple of years ago, and just last week announced that they were eliminating dedicated sick time entirely starting the first of next year. Want to take a sick day? Spend your “paid time off” (a.k.a., vacation days) to do it.
Insert a, “I’d love to use my sick time, IF I HAD ANY” meme here.
Every company I've worked for in the last 20 years or so have combined sick time and vacation time into a single "paid time off" bucket.
I strongly prefer that, honestly. It means that I don't have to categorize the reasons why I'm taking the time off because it doesn't matter. It's all just time off.
The key to remember is that it means that PTO is not "vacation time". It's a paid time off allowance that can certainly be used for vacation, but can also be used for other things.
I think "sick time" or "sick days" is a very US-centric thing. In good chunks of the EU, medical leaves (approved by a doctor) are a legally protected concept.
Yep. However, before the Apple Silicon migration, VT-x gave us extremely low-overhead virtualization. We built a tiny linux kernel that booted in a second or two and were able to run whatever we wanted with minimal perf overhead.
In the Apple Silicon migration, obviously emulating x86_64 got slow, but even when we built ARM64 VMs, performance was still miserable: there was (is?) no way -- at least no way we ever figured out -- to get reasonable perf out of virtualization on a macbook.
It's possible that this changed post-M1 and it sounds likely it's set to change with M4.
EDIT: ok, I'm probably hallucinating more problem than there actually turned out to be based on the pain in the first year of the M1 chips.
If you are referring to the nested virtualisation support in ARM v8, it was added in the ARM v8.3-A revision of the architecture, and M1 uses ARM v8.5-A as the baseline.
But yes, virtualisaiton support for ARM (in general) was abysmal and Apple Silicon was the catalyst that pushed people over the edge towards improving it across aarch64 (also in general).
I still use Reddit, but I gave up on productively contributing to it.
The only account I use now is purely for NSFW reddits, which Reddit will not display advertising for, and I don’t post questions or write comments. They serve me media they host, incurring the costs of storage and data transfer, and get nothing from me in return.
> Where actually they are a full monopoly in the App Store market.
They do, they absolutely do. What’s worse, it turns out they have a full monopoly in MacBooks, computers running macOS, iPads, and iPhones.
In other words, no they don’t. The legal definition of monopoly is not solely, “if there’s only one participant in a market, the participant in that market has a monopoly”. There is necessarily more to it than that, because if that’s all it was, literally every company selling a product would have a monopoly in that product.
No, they want installs on-demand once you select the browser, which ties into a subsequent demand that browsers be able to be downloaded directly from the source or an alternative App Store.
> Because the only reason I can think of is whining about not being the default.
That is exactly the reason.
The charitable reason is so that the browser, upon launch, can ask the user if they want to make it the default.
The problem is that the only incentive browser vendors have to not ask repeatedly is the frequency threshold past which the user will not use the browser.
> All of these need to get broken up until we have at least a half-dozen competing companies in those spaces.
You seem to be forgetting, we had your “at least a half-dozen competing companies" situation in the past. It was called the late 2000s and the early 2010s. And the reason it disappeared is not the traditional “everybody merges until only two or three are left standing”, it’s because iOS and Android were so much better than the competition that every other phone manufacturer starved to death or switched to Android.
By the time a new generation of smartphones with sufficiently-equivalent OSes had arrived — in the form of webOS and Microsoft Phone — iOS and Android were so established the newcomers couldn’t successfully compete.
Even today, while there are only two major OSes, there are still numerous successfully competing manufacturers: Samsung, Google, Apple, OnePlus, BLU, Lenovo/Motorola, Huwaei, Xiaomi, Vivo, Oppo, etc. They all make mobile phones, with varying levels of market share across the world.
> it’s because iOS and Android were so much better than the competition that every other phone manufacturer starved to death or switched to Android.
I would argue that it was because Apple and Google could cross-subsidize the market from their other buisnesses.
Google viewed the ISPs as an existential threat and saw both mobile and fiber as a way to disintermediate them. Apple saw phones as an existential threat to iPod which was a huge chunk of their revenue.
Google didn't release Android until 2008. As of 2009 Nokia still had 33% market share and even Samsung(13%) and RIM (15%) beat Apple (11%).
> iOS and Android were so established the newcomers couldn’t successfully compete.
That is practically the definition of monopoly, you know?
> Why not just let people do what they do with other files and leave it on their desktop.
Once upon a time, upon seeing a disk image open with an app icon, a certain quantity of people would choose to run the app straight off the disk image, likely not understanding the prompt to copy the app to the Applications folder.
Then, sometime later, the disk image would be unmounted (e.g., system reboot) and suddenly the app they had “installed” disappeared.
Rather than force everyone into mandatorily copying apps to the Applications folder, they added a dialog to suggest to the user where the app should go. I will say, though, I didn’t realize it applied to _everything_ outside of the Applications folder. I thought it was only for apps run off of disk images.
It’s a law that establishes no measurable compliance guidelines, while providing absolutely no limitations on what the EU can decide counts as a violation retroactively. It’s basically “We’re not going to tell you what we want you to do. You need to guess what we want you to do, and fuck you if you guess wrong.”