Can't believe the HTTPS everywhere cargo cult still can't get it through their skulls there is still a place and use cases for plaintext HTTP. In some cases, CRLs for example, they shall not be served over HTTPS.
HTTPS does not validate the trustworthiness of a site. Never has and never will. It only validates that the site has not been tampered with during transfer. Phishing sites can also have HTTPS, that doesn't make them trustworthy.
EV and OV when it includes dns names still requires domain control validation anyway.
EV certs are generally manually verified. This means there’s a human factor in the middle of this process. DV certs can, and should, be fully automated.
Well for starters, they stopped providing any updates for many perfectly functional Intel Macs years ago for no other reason than planned obsolescence. A side effect of the "they make both the hardware and software that's why it's better" paradigm.
Things like OpenCore Legacy Patcher prove it's possible; they just don't want to.
I don't think anyone feels entitled to new features in perpetuity. Security updates only would be fine thank you.
Don't tell me the richest company in the world can't pay for a couple of developers who just want to rest and vest to take care of and test the legacy platforms. A cushy job and you keep the customers happy.
Ironically the best way to stay safe on these computers is to install Windows or Linux.
Software needs longer support life cycles in general. I find it frustrating that organizations do not support operating systems, hardware, and applications for at least 10 years. Note Apple is one of the better organizations on this. Consumer router companies are notorious for shipping unpatched software. Here is what I would like to see:
1. All hardware and software should come with a highly visible end of support date.
2. All hardware and software should notify people when it is no longer receiving security patches. It should also explain to users why running unpatched software or hardware is dangerous.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/102772 outlines "vintage" and "obsolete" status for hardware products, with a few exceptions. I'm not aware of a similarly straightforward criteria or comprehensive list for software support periods.
Samsung nowadays tells you ahead of time how long a phone will get major updates and security updates. I think it's the same with Google Pixel. And they have a list of models and their release schedules:
My qualm with them is though that not all devices are updated at the same time (like iOS/iPadOS/macOS). One phone may get an update the 10th of the month, while another only gets it the 30th. As a result, there is often quite a large window where vulnerabilities are known, but not yet patched (it's even worse with the cheap models that only get quarterly updates).
Yes, I'm fully aware that the support article I linked to is specifically about hardware support—that's why I mentioned that there isn't a similar list for software support.
The issue with passing off a list of vintage products as some kind of past tense support schedule is by definition products become vintage when they are added to the list at some arbitrary date.
My expectation is a table of OS versions and EOL dates published in advance. Like nearly every other responsible OS vendor in existence. Apple continuing to get a pass on this in 2024 is abhorrent.
> The issue with passing off a list of vintage products as some kind of past tense support schedule is by definition products become vintage when they are added to the list at some arbitrary date.
If you read some of the text above the product list, you'll see that Apple does publish guidelines about when products can be expected to be added to the list:
> Products are considered vintage when Apple stopped distributing them for sale more than 5 and less than 7 years ago.
> Products are considered obsolete when Apple stopped distributing them for sale more than 7 years ago. Monster-branded Beats products are considered obsolete regardless of when they were purchased.
> Apple discontinues all hardware service for obsolete products, and service providers cannot order parts for obsolete products. Mac laptops may be eligible for an extended battery-only repair period for up to 10 years from when the product was last distributed for sale, subject to parts availability.
So as you can see, it's not arbitrary or unpredictable when a product is going to show up on the vintage product list. The only unpredictable or obscure part of this process is finding out how long an outdated product was still being sold after its successor launched.
Ok, but this is an Apples vs oranges comparison. (Carlos!)
We are talking about software support here.
The vintage products list is specifically targeting hardware support; e.g. how long Apple will keep spare parts in stock. After a set number of years they purge stock and you are SOL going to Chinese third party vendors and places like iFixit for batteries etc.
Not really; vintage macs turning obsolete are being dropped from the macOS support very reliably. I.e. the 2015 mbp was dropped from 2022 macos release like on the clock.
Agreed. It takes more than a few developers to support older operating systems.
At my old job we supported only two versions of our software product, Tanzu Operations Manager versions 2.10.x and 3.0.y), and we cut new patch releases every few weeks (similar to Apple's cadence). Bumping dependencies was a pain. Well, usually it went fine, but sometimes you'd hit a gnarly incompatibility and you'd either pin a Ruby package to a known version or try to modify the code just enough to make it work without making a major change.
If I had to put a number to it, I'd say it cost us 2 developers to keep our older product line consistently patched, and our product was a modest Ruby app, much less complicated than an entire OS.
You act as if we should be thankful for 6 years of support when the hardware and sane support cycles easily exceed 10 years. And those aren't 6 years of security updates; they are 6 years of forced yearly feature upgrades and breaking things along the way.
What exactly is an old Intel mac and what is a casual work?
For example, I have 2015 macbook pro. The last macos release for it is Monterey. Even brew has problems with that, erroring out when installing packages like libpng and complaining, that I should upgrade xcode cli tools. Which I can't.
Not on Macbook Airs that are only 3-5 years old though. We have a number that we plan on replacing after EOY, but we are still using for now. Can't get Sequoia.
Absolutely not. Apple was still selling non-Retina Intel MacBook Airs until 2019. Those are now completely unsupported with no security updates having topped out at Monterrey. 5 years of updates on a new laptop is borderline criminal.
> Don't tell me the richest company in the world can't pay for a couple of developers who just want to rest and vest to take care of and test the legacy platforms.
Why would they shoot themselves in the foot ? If the new MacOS does not run on older HW and they don't release patches (no development team) it is a win-win situation: user must buy a new Mac and no money is wasted supporting old HW.
We were running RDP and Citrix ICA over dial-up in the 90s. Unlike X or VNC, Windows protocols were designed to be low overhead. It wasn't great, but it worked.
They are specifically making the case similar in style to certain older Japanese computers, that's the retro aspect. They do not act like they are first to market, they made a joke ps pseudo-pc98 product and people liked it enough to make it real
The dream. One side for the MB/CPU and the other for the GPU with a weird little pcie bridge in the middle. Pleasssse.
It's odd living in the tech designs of the past. While thinking of the x68000 Elite I remembered the "BMW Design Level 10 Case by Thermaltake" (just say no to the GT and GTS versions) and started wondering if/how long before that complete goofball of a case gets a cult following and a remake. Then I started wondering what are the designs folks younger than myself have fallen in love with? I'd love to know.
Your last point is really a sore point of mine nowadays, it appears I can only get aquariums instead of a proper PC tower like in the good old days.
For anyone not feeling like building a custom PC tower around my region, it is either a proper case with sucky hardware like i5 CPUs, or proper hardware configuration, packaged in rainbows from all forms and colours.
I have a Meshify 2 for my main desktop with a 5800X and a 3090 for airflow, and a Define 7 for my home server with 10x HDDs, for quietness’s sake. The frustrating part now is opaque sided cases are lower volume parts, and usually more expensive as a result :/
From the look of it evercases do not include last 15 years of discoveries around cable routing, variable screw slots for fans, etc. SilverStone case seems to be modern intestines in retro outfit.
Front end developers bear the responsibility for this nonsense, and many of the guilty post in this very forum!
There is nothing in what you described that couldn't be accomplished with late 90s-era technology.
Why is an app needed? A simple web page with basic HTML, enter number plate or space number, enter payment info, submit, done. No browser features introduced in the last 20 years are needed. The only improvement is enhancements to security - so we're up to TLS 1.3.
Do we really need spinning pinwheels and bleeding edge web standards to process a simple payment?
> coworker of mine just spent $100k on a regular old pickup truck
> It gets like 11 mpg and uses the 92 octane fuel.
I understand hating on pickup trucks is an easy way to farm upvotes on HN, but there is no 'regular pickup truck' in existence that gets 11 mpg. The closest that comes to that is the F-150 Raptor with turbocharged V8 which is a preposterous performance vehicle with a racing engine. It is a luxury item. Yet for some reason we don't criticize people with the same disdain who buy and drive sports cars which get as bad or even worse mpg. I guess the Lambo drivers never need to haul lumber.
The F-150 is also offered in hybrid (which gets > double that mpg) and all electric drivetrains.
I will make the equally presumptuous assumption that since you've narrowed your choices to "Prius or Prius" you harbor some grudges against pickup owners.
> but there is no 'regular pickup truck' in existence
I grew up in deep country. I've owned my share of pickups. When you need them, they're invaluable. When you don't, they're basically the most inconvenient daily drivers you can have short of a box truck, an RV, or a main battle tank. Outside of a fairly narrow range of medium-sized hauling activities, they aren't really even terribly good at carrying things.
I hate talking about things as "it's more than anybody could need" because you end up with needs-based conceptualization of lifestyles with people eating diets of only sweet potatoes, commuting on onewheels, and living in Hong-Kong style coffin apartments. But these things are not only obnoxious main character syndrome demonstrators, they're actively dangerous to everybody in and around them even when they're following the rules of the road.
If I was king for a day, I'd make driving one require a special class of license and tax them extra if they aren't being used for active work purposes like they're intended. They should be in the same class of vehicle as commercial box trucks, because that's what they're supposed to be for.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if some type of vehicle fad takes over the U.S. at some point where people just start driving converted box trucks or RVs around as daily drivers, then complain that all the parking garages and train overpasses are too low for their 13 and a half foot tall lifestyle decisions.
> there is no 'regular pickup truck' in existence that gets 11 mpg
Point but e.g. the 2024 Silverado gets 12mpg in city driving. Go to any office parking lot here and you’ll see a lot of that size truck which have clearly never been used harder than going to Costco - and even the better ones are barely approaching ⅔ of the mpg of the pickup my grandparents bought in the 1980s.
I do agree that from a pollution standpoint we should treat all inefficient vehicles as the problem but large trucks and SUVs have significant immediate downsides for everyone around them. They’re far more lethal when they hit pedestrians or smaller vehicles, they produce higher tire and brake particulates which are known to cause health issues, they take more space to park, and at least where I live there are streets which could previously handle bidirectional traffic but now require someone to pull over to let oncoming traffic pass because there isn’t enough room for two large vehicles. In contrast, sports car drivers pose less risk because they’re low to the ground and the drivers are far more likely to see you and avoid an accident.
>approaching ⅔ of the mpg of the pickup my grandparents bought in the 1980s.
It's for your own good, peasant. That 1989 S10 (or whatever else got mid 20s around that time) had basically no crash protection let alone ABS and ESC and.... and... and.......
I’m aware but that article is overstating the problem: the issue is weight so the problem comes back to the form factor. Every office worker LARPing as a rancher is making the world worse buying an unnecessary truck regardless of the power train. EV trucks and SUVs are bad, but so are the ICE versions.
I didn't realize ICE vehicles don't have tires. News to me.
There is a slight increase in tire particulates, sure. A small increase. There's also a lot less brake particulates. And get this: there's no tailpipe emissions either.
The Model Y has +89% more volume. Its considerably bigger car with more torque. It's not a good comparison. And even though its 32% heavier and has a ton more torque, its tire wear was 26% greater. You're arguing it goes up by the fourth power, but it wasn't even a 1 for 1 increase on a car with considerably more torque. And besides, their testing shows the tire wear particulates for their comparison gas car as even higher than the Y.
Let me reiterate it again. The Kia is a much smaller car with way less torque. It is a poor comparison from the get-go. Go find a similar sized vehicle with a similar amount of torque. But this study is pretty heavily biased, so they chose their cars accordingly.
But let's continue on and see what it is you're trying to point out.
> Kia has 50% as many emissions
You're now talking about the VOCs table at the bottom. This is a pretty bullshit test overall.
> Large samples from one tyre on each vehicle were also taken and placed in a ‘microchamber’ heated to 20 degrees Celsius, around the temperature of a vehicle certification test, and held at that level for the same duration of the on-road EQUA test – around three-and-a-half hours. The off-gassed VOCs were analysed and quantified, and then scaled up by the relative surface area of the sample to that of all four tyres on the vehicle. The results are shown in the table below.
So, this isn't actually testing the tires under load on the car at all, they're just baking a small piece in the oven and scaling the resulting VOCs to the size of the tires. This test isn't testing the car, its testing the tire. There are no controls over this test. It's just a tire of an unknown age from one car with a part cut out and a tire of an unknown age from another car with a part cut out. The brands and models are pretty different, which could lead to pretty radical results.
If I put brand new tires on that Kia and used some pretty old ones on the Tesla those numbers would look radically different. Even two different models of tires from the same manufacturer could yield vastly different numbers. If you used the exact same model from the exact same manufacturer made at the same time the car with bigger tires would have the worst emissions, which says absolutely nothing about whether that's a tire going on an EV or a sedan with a hybrid engine or a truck with a DEF delete getting 6 MPG. See how that's then a pretty poor test?
Seriously friendo, read the studies you're wanting to use to talk about these things. There's so many absolutely bullshit studies trying to get you to think one way or another. Don't just go "table says 57%, ev bad!"
Now I think I know where you're pulling that fourth power from. You're probably thinking of road wear which does scale like that. But that's road wear, not tire wear, and doesn't result in the same airborne particulate issue here.
And even then, it's small potatoes compared to actual big trucks and busses rolling on the roads.
I was thinking about road wear. I had thought the same equation applied to both tires and the road. Why wouldn't the increases in wear on both increase in the same way? (You seem to know why, so honest question, not snark)
I don't fully know but it is probably something to do with the fact tires are designed to be more malleable and flexible than roads. The tire is also flexing and pushing on an air cushion while the road itself is being pressed against and having to flex with the ground.
Also, almost all the particulate emissions are due to the abrasive nature of the road-tire interface tearing apart the tire. Tires are a cheaper and simpler wear items than roads, something is going to give, so we've decided we'll replace our tires more often than tearing up our roads. Just like if you ever got road rash, the road is going to tear you up far more than you're going to tear the road up. So, while the road forms cracks and what not from its repeated stresses it's not coming apart like dust nearly as much. Don't get me wrong, some small, tiny amount of it does but not nearly as much as the tire.
The external effects of large pickup trucks are drastically more than that of a small sports car, in ways that are more immediate than climate change.
Large pickup trucks take up a lot more space on the road and parking lots, are harder to see around, and when they get into accidents they cause a lot more damage and injuries to people both in and out of cars. There is a very different visceral response to a large pickup truck tailgating you with its driver perched above you, than a Lambo or 911 doing the same.
I think it's a strange argument: that buying a truck is "worse" than buying a sports car. I think the term "apples and oranges" is applicable here. The former are both vehicles and the latter are both fruit, but otherwise have fairly different cost/benefit.
The default in America is to make everything out to be individualistic, but the rest of us have to bear the very real costs of the externality of pickups, not just limited to pollution but also safety, land use, etc.
You mean like the police in America? Or elementary and high school? Or fire brigades, interstate highways, border security or the thousands of other things you rely on every single day that are 100% socialism.
Agreed. It's really amazing what they've done in recent years.
I ended up in a fullsize primarily because I got it cheaper than the midsizes I was looking at. The midsize market is priced really oddly.
Anywho, I was blown away that it's getting me 23MPG. That's what my previous midsize was giving me.
That's nearly double what fullsizes got in the 90s.
My guess would be the difference in perception comes from the fact sport cars tend to be smaller and sit lower, which makes pedestrians and motorist feel safer and less intimidated around them. In addition their general rarity means most people still view them as novelties rather than something to actually take a side on. That being said though it is 100% true performance engines are the absolute worst in terms of economy/emissions/noise; most truck engines are really just oversized economy engines and have the efficiency to match.
Also I tend to think that they are often rather expensive and not as robust. So people who drive them do not want to damage. As repairs tend to be expensive too. So in general they avoid accidents, unless they are going to speed off the road...
Lamborghini drivers obeying the traffic rules aren't creating a hazard.
Aftermarket headlights blazing directly into the eyes of oncoming drivers are creating a hazard. As is the fact that it takes up a lot of road space and has poor visibility for small objects in front of the hood.
I don't think it's malicious in most cases. As a counterpoint, most family members I know with absurdly large cars, either dimensionally or in terms of seat height aren't very confident drivers and the large vehicle makes them feel "safer" especially if they have kids in the car. I recognize it's not always the case but they didn't buy a large car to lord over other people on the road they did it for emotional piece of mind. I'm willing to bet a lot of people however wouldn't be willing to admit that that's why they prefer a large car out of some perceived weakness or the like.
Taking one single family home solar does not provide a measurable environmental impact in aggregate.
OP doesn't have to pay the electric bill anymore, but the average residential solar install exceeds $30k before credits. Someone has to pay off that loan...
Not to mention the Chinese factory that manufactured the solar panels is probably dumping toxic waste chemicals into the local drinking water unabated. We're all too busy patting ourselves on the back for saving the world to consider the impact of the whole lifecycle.
> Taking one single family home solar does not provide a measurable environmental impact in aggregate.
In order for large numbers of homes to go solar, individual homes need to go solar. Are you saying we just shouldn't bother with solar and EVs because not everyone is going to do it? May aswell just stop donating to charity too right?
> Someone has to pay off that loan...
I think the OP is probably paying for the loan themselves. The subsidies are just a small part of the total cost.
> probably dumping toxic waste chemicals...
Again, I think everyone would agree that it'd be better if the solar panel production process was totally clean, but the fact it isn't yet doesn't stop solar being a net win.
>In order for large numbers of homes to go solar, individual homes need to go solar.
Assuming that SFH remain the standard. Even with ADUs, that changes. (Idea: subsidize only based on the presence of multifamily on a lot?)
>I think the OP is probably paying for the loan themselves.
Hm. Knock-on effect. That homeowner now has to command the income to pay for the loan. That changes his job choice, consumption habits. Maybe his boss feels that he has to pay him more to keep him happy (and not another worker). If he has to sell, price has to be higher in order to break even/get a return. Solar is probably a good thing for municipal expenses, re: less strain on the power grid, but you also get a better turn in that regard converting multi-family or non-residential buildings.
CA is doing both but PG&E (and SDGE and SCE, etc) are screwing everyone over as they wasted decades without maintaining their lines properly and now charge through the roof on power distribution which they have a monopoly on.
> In order for large numbers of homes to go solar, individual homes need to go solar.
The percentage of energy going to my house which was generated by solar continues to go up every year. And yet I haven't installed a single solar panel. Strange huh?
You just described any modern shitware that uses npm.