When friends with iPhones send me images or videos using iMessage, they are very low-quality compared to what iPhone users receive. But when Android users send me the same, they are higher quality.
So I think the specific answer to your question is "iMessage and its lack of support for <protocol (RCS?)>".
Cause it would be better for Apple's customers. This one doesn't even have the "my parents security" defense like installing non app store apples does. Do you honestly think any costumer WANTS iPhone to be shitty at sending images?
Why do you have to defend every little thing that Apple does as if you were their lawyer? I get that you like some parts of their walled garden, but why do Apple stans behave as if Apple was a sacred company that could do no wrong, when there examples like this that they are literally harming their own customers to protect their moat. I get why Apple does it, I don't get why anyone here would side with Apple.
imessage (the protocol) doesn't. iPhones should, because it's a common way for people to communicate. It was fine for us to start laissez faire but now that we see Apple abusing things by not interoperating -- deliberately in order to sell more phones [1], the people should intervene.
> imessage (the protocol) doesn't. iPhones should, because it's a common way for people to communicate.
iPhones are fully capable of transmitting images (and even other types of files--what an amazing world we live in). Feel free to install any of the numerous apps available that allow you to do this.
I never said iMessage needs to support anything, I was merely answering a question that I thought was asked in good faith.
The US government claims that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive practices by degrading the behavior of iMessage when communicating to non-Apple devices.
Your stance seems to be, this should not be something for the government to be involved in, let the market decide.
This is ambiguous. Perhaps you believe that US antitrust laws shouldn't exist, or should be changed so they don't apply to this case, or actually don't apply to this case (ie the government is wrong that Apple's behavior violates the law).
Those are all coherent stances you could have, though I think it would be helpful if you identified which of them you hold if you want to engage in meaningful discourse with others.
My understanding is that Apple wont add RCS support until end-to-end encryption is part of the RCS standard, which it currently isn't. And they wont use property add-ons such as what Google use for encryption.
Competitors stuffed around trying to build a competitor for over a decade and failed. Is that Apple's fault?
Page 17 shows that R&D costs for pharma is 10-20x larger than equity-based compensation. That's all stock-based compensation, for execs and regular people. Your claim is that it's the opposite.
> It's amazing and sad how quickly the hacker joy has been sucked out of this company.
I get the aversion to polished presentations like this, but I dunno, I work here and still feel like there's a lot of hacker joy still. You clearly aren't the audience for this presentation, but one audience doesn't exclude another.
Oh wow, I think this translates PTX (nvidia's high-level assembly code) to SPIR-V? Am I reading this right? That's...a lot.
A note to any systems hackers who might try something like this, you can also retarget clang's CUDA support to SPIR-V via a LLVM-to-SPIR-V translator. I can say with confidence that this works. :)
Additionally the driver of rent is ultimately an arbitrage argument. If I can buy a home and rent it out for more than the prevailing mortgage costs then rents must drop and home prices must rise, otherwise people will buy more property to rent out. Likewise the opposite is true. Home prices are dropping, so rent should drop too. Except for the fact that leveraged home costs are rising due to interest rates rising quickly. The article mentions some regions are seeing lots of new supply on the market so they can definitely impact the dynamic - but I don’t think coastal cities are seeing any new supply to speak of, so I doubt seriously rents are dropping in those cities. I would expect as costs to buy go up, rents will also rise assuming supply stays constant.
I assume it sort of balances out, if properties don’t sell, they may go on the rental market. Another thing is that the renters pool has some elasticity built-in: renters may move with relatives or roommates/significant other.
I don't think I agree with the principle of, if you can ignore the hate speech it's actually a pretty egalitarian place.
Like you say, it's not egalitarian towards those who don't have an easy time ignoring the hate speech. And, okay, in principle if the strength of one's stomach for hate speech was randomly distributed to humans with no correlation to anything else, maybe that would not disqualify it as egalitarian.
But it's not. People who face discrimination and hate speech IRL will, on average, surely have less tolerance for it online than people who don't. I have to believe that women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and so on, feel much less welcome on a place like 4chan. They've already spent their "ignoring hate speech points" ignoring someone harassing them on the subway.
So whatever it's virtues -- and I'm willing to believe you there are some -- I don't think that a place with this much toxicity can rightly be called egalitarian.
> I don't think that a place with this much toxicity can rightly be called egalitarian.
You don't make a village by welcoming anyone and everyone. An egalitarian country with strict immigration laws and rampant racism towards foreigners is still egalitarian within its own populace. Likewise, simply because people who disagree with 4chan's abrasive culture don't feel welcome there doesn't make it any less egalitarian within itself.
What does 'egalitarian within itself' mean for an online community where everybody can join? How do you get to have 'rights and opportunities' and how to you keep 'the others' out?
Egalitarian in the sense that nobody is untouchable and everybody gets shit from everyone else. Rights and opportunities are built into the system by anonymity, minimal moderation and the resulting lack of power structure. Others are kept out by self-selection.
Usually, egalitarianism is defined by laxity on the axes most used for discrimination, like race. If your race literally matters less than your tolerance of racism (or free expression of other types of hate speech), and what matters more is the quality of your code in /g/ posts, I would say that's "egalitarian".
Being absolutely egalitarian is a fantasy. No one does that. The government is not egalitarian on the axis of murdering people. Universities are not egalitarian on the axes of failing all your classes constantly and not being able to pay for them. Workplaces are not egalitarian to open racists or people who post on HN all day instead of getting anything done. There's always some elitism at play, relevant to whatever's being emphasized (being a good student, being a good programmer, being a good worker, etc.).
Part of the elitism on 4chan is tolerating horrible cringe banter and opinions. I think that's fair given that the rest of the Internet is elitist on the basis of being as nice as possible and mindful of the algorithmic censors to not upset advertisers' spice flow.
> that the rest of the Internet is elitist on the basis of being as nice as possible
I strongly disagree - tone policing isn't about being nice but about appearing nice. And lately even that pretense is not required when talking about the right groups.
>People who face discrimination and hate speech IRL will, on average, surely have less tolerance for it online than people who don't.
Or maybe its the opposite, because we know words on a screen are not violence. 4chan is egalitarian in that everyone is an n-word, everyone is an r-word and anonymity means we are all the same. There's a reason unnecessary tripcodes are frowned upon.
4chan is what I associate with early 2000s internet. It hasn't changed. The only evolution being having newer, more popular insults, like autist, i guess.
We all called each other various slurs back then and the only reason you'd get mad or emotional over it is because you hadn't been on the internet for long enough. Or if you're getting rekt in a video game and they're rubbing it in, i guess.
The mainstream platforms that have appeared since only brought politically correct faux civility that hid the aggression behind a system of rules that has only made communication less genuine and more toxic. Strip away the identity behind a post and only the content remains. And that's why it works. It shuts down behaviours looking to cultivate a persona, which is bad for engagement, but good for content.
> The mainstream platforms that have appeared since only brought politically correct faux civility that hid the aggression behind a system of rules that has only made communication less genuine and more toxic.
This. I'm not exactly making an argument that slurs increase genuineness, but forcefully stripping them away definitely does not decrease toxicity. Nobody is suddenly a nicer person just because they can't call you a ***. They just find another way to be an asshole, and maybe work a little extra-hard while they're at it.
In some ways it seems to make the waters more difficult to navigate. You try to engage with people in earnest and get subtly accused of all sorts of bs. Sometimes it's easier if someone just drops a few choice expletives at you and you both just move on with life.
I do wonder how much hate speech, especially in the early 4chan years, was a deliberate shield against those _not_ targeted by such speech but still cannot ignore it. Think of white people who would post a "how dare you" rant when they see the n-word or male feminists. It's a way to keep out the moral guardians and cut down on behavior I like to call "dogshitting." Unlike sea-lioning and its "per our previous conversation…" off-topic nature, dogshitters nominally address the parent post… with nitpicks irrelevant to the thread's larger topic.
Really? Would you not think that being anonymous, performative moral actions would be fewer than a social network which was tied to an actual identity?
I don't understand why in your example, the point couldn't be made without specifically using crude language. It doesn't seem like that racial slurs would contribute to the threads topic.
Don't be combative. It's an American website, created with Americans in mind, with conversation conducted almost entirely in (American) English. Yes it happens to be owned by a Japanese national now, but that fact doesn't seem to have altered the culture or the discourse much. The minorities in question are clearly minorities to the US, and to a lesser extent minorities to the broader Anglo/English-speaking-Eurosphere.
You must be unaware of the phenomenon of /int/ :DDDD
First found on the German site Krautchan, you could hardly describe a forum so inclusive as one dedicated to cultural exchange where anyone may flame in any thread in any language. The concept spread quickly among the chans. And so the users of the /int/ boards became worldwide pollinators of memes, the DNA of the soul.
That optimistic era is passed, however /int/ remains the sixth most active board of 4chan.
4chan and others approach to internet discourse is very approachable for most eastern european millennials. It just works well with their distain for faux/internet personalities, which is something you will end up with when anonymity is not a strong element of a community.
But I have no data on visitors or posters, so I might be projecting.
If we're arbitrarily limiting scope to just America, why stop there? Let's drill down further, and say HN is aimed at California, which is only 34% white [1]. Does that get them the coveted minority status?
I don't see why the only perspective allowed should be one that maximizes apparent white privilege, especially since in other contexts, Eurocentrism is something that is decried.
Most internet websites, such as HN only require an email address to register, beyond that they are totally anonymous and indifferent to the country of origin, religion, gender etc. of their poster. The only hard requirement is that you need to speak English somewhat well, and be interested/willing to join in the discussion (of typically nerdy topics).
I'm not sure what are the actual demographics of HN, but I'd be curious to see what is the actual national makeup of people who post here. Probably more info isn't really possible to collect considering the limited data the site has to work with.
You may have noticed that, over the past few years, the term "minority" has been increasingly often accompanied by qualifications such as "underprivileged", "marginalised", "underrepresented", and I've recently seen "underestimated" popping up as well.
I do not think that is a coincidence, especially since how the qualifiers are so exquisitely unfalsifiable. (wer ein Jud' ist, bestimme ich!)
People who are traumatized by something should seek therapy and perhaps avoid places where they are exposed to that (although perhaps the opposite is better). Demanding others to adapt their culture to fit you is a good way to actually be hated.
So someone feels like a perennial outsider because they're referred to with slur words every time they out themselves as gay or non white or a woman, they should all get therapy and deal with it? Absolutely no responsibility for the people perpetuating hate?
Why don't you test your theory by walking up to some people and calling them slurs. See if they all shrug it off because at least you're not a cop shooting them.
So I think the specific answer to your question is "iMessage and its lack of support for <protocol (RCS?)>".