Nope, Python 3 is a sane upgrade to a sane language bringing many enhancements to the consistency and reliability of Python. And it is being used in many production systems already.
Claiming people have been brainwashed because you happen to have a different use case than them is not appropriate for HN, nor anywhere.
And speaking to your earlier point as somebody using Python 3 in production, says me. Nobody in here cares whether you in particular gets to see the advantages of the new version; but you don't get to say "nobody is using it in production", you don't get to say it's "forced down people's throats" when there's years-long support for it and you certainly don't get to say "no good reason at all" if you're the only one unable to grasp the improvements the language is getting.
Yeah, sadly; this could have gone viral. The las time I checked there were about 200 views and a 22 to none like/dislike ratio. Although it is probably better this way.
I have. How does that solve the problem I mentioned?
The whole thing uses basically GNOME standard keyboard shortcuts, and two extremely common ones, Cmd-S and Cmd-W, which are normally used universally for "Save" and "Close" respectively are actually for doing things with the window and workspace manager in elementaryOS.
For the most part the shortcuts seem to be inherited from GNOME/Gtk.
I've been an avid Sublime user for many years and still am, and this is what puts me off any electron based editor or app in general. The requirements for the most trivial things are so high, it is insane. Try running Atom on a AMD E1 laptop. TLDR, not very nice.
I'm certain that if you are really honest with yourself, you'll agree that the "malicious" practices you point out are entirely different - not even comparable - to the security negligence pointed out in the OP.
When I buy an Apple computer, I'm aware of everything you listed - and in fact, I enjoy it. I don't want to worry about a thing when I buy my computer. I'm not interested in self repairing, upgrading, or tinkering.
If I buy an Asus however, I would have had no idea that my entire system was at risk. That kind of negligence is malicious in my eyes - not creating closed off hardware.
Apple's devices tend to be more difficult to repair or upgrade yourself, yes, but this is not malicious, even if it is somewhat hostile.
Also, I should point out that while Apple's phones don't let you install unapproved software, this isn't true of the Mac, which, unlike Microsoft-approved PCs[0], lets you install alternative operating systems (you can even boot to DOS!), disable its security features, etc.
[0] I know that MS do allow OEMs to allow disabling Secure Boot, but it's not required as of Windows 10. Meanwhile, Apple's computers don't have it in the first place!
> Apple's devices tend to be more difficult to repair or upgrade yourself, yes, but this is not malicious, even if it is somewhat hostile.
If they consciously take a hostile action (and let's face it, you don't accidentally design a new screw) then yes, I'd call that malicious. If you do that repeatedly then I'd consider you evil.
> Also, I should point out that while Apple's phones don't let you install unapproved software, this isn't true of the Mac, which, unlike Microsoft-approved PCs[0], lets you install alternative operating systems (you can even boot to DOS!), disable its security features, etc.
Gatekeeper seems like a step towards it. And regardless, Microsoft isn't exactly a paragon to compare yourself against.[0]
Right. These can also be interpret as their reason to make slimmer devices. People buying these products would presumably know what they're getting into.
Custom screws, unless they're customized beyond the driver required to remove them, almost certainly don't qualify as a tool for making slimmer devices.
4 out of 6 complaints here all help reduce the size of an electronics product.
In fact some of those decisions led me to chose an Apple product over a non apple one.
Locked down software ended up being a business decision for Apple's App store. As for the screws, I have no idea, but you can easily find appropriate screwdrivers online so it doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.
Right. That's Facebook's compromise on privacy. EPIC is suing them over even that.[1]
Face.com did facial recognition on Facebook with no limits back in 2010.[2] Then Facebook bought them and killed the broad face recognition.[3]
There are other face recognition companies now, but they're keeping a lower profile about how broad their database is. Except for Findface[4] in Russia. They loaded up the entire photo database of Vcontact, a social network in Russia. 70% success in identifying random young people on the St. Petersburg metro.
I tested Findface and it was unable to find my Vkontakte account, despite a copious amount of photos on my account there. It did, however, find a huge number of Russians that I would say look exactly like me. Also, strangely, a couple of Vkontakte accounts that had Agent Gibbs as profile pics. It's a pretty cool app!
I believe them when they say they don't share, but are you sure about that? Even advertisers that already have my full name and some data, they wouldn't want to link with what Google and Facebook have?
To be concrete, my local supermarket and Amazon have my full name, and partial purchase information (the supermarket via a loyalty card). Both have ways to contact me with promotions. You don't think they'd like to know what I like on Facebook (if I did that) or what I search on Google that might suggest purchase intent?
I think they'd love that data, the platforms just make more money by only allowing them to target with it.
Why would that version be any better than the one that is generally available?
The only difference that I imagine exists is being able to search from the pool of "everyone" rather than "your friends", but that would make it less confident. In the law enforcement version, there would probably be a way to anchor the search to another individual just to improve accuracy to an acceptable level.
I can't imagine it would be that good? I suspect limiting the search space to your friend list (and probably the part of your friend list that you're ever actually likely to meet) is the only way to keep these results even a little accurate.
