Your assertion doesn't match the plain facts though.
We know Apple isn't suppressing this issue because there's a long, detailed thread about it on their own discussion site. If they wanted to try to suppress it, they would surely include that but didn't.
Also, suppressing information about problems to prevent bad press can't work anyway, since Apple only controls its own litter corner of the internet. If Apple didn't allow discussion of this issue on their board, it would be discussed elsewhere and generate the same bad press. If we suppose Apple tries to work in its own self-interests, they wouldn't bother with deleting posts to prevent bad press since it can't possibly work.
Meanwhile, there are obviously legitimate reasons to moderate postsm, so the fact that posts are being deleted doesn't seem nefarious on its own. There are angry people in that thread and angry people tend post things that need moderation.
I mean, I don't know. I'm open to the possibility that Apple is doing something bad. But so far, there's really no smoke, much less any fire.
Yeah, which is why this MacBook Pro line has a non-butterfly keyboard and why they went through three iteration of the butterfly keyboard before giving up on it.
Yes, and sort of the reason why most people discuss these sort of issues in other forum to gain support and evidence before posting it in the Official Forum.
Negative Post there, whether they are Hardware or Software are regularly deleted.
There is one difference: violence. Laws are enforced on threat of violence. A business cannot force you to follow their procedures, at most they can deny you business. If I start selling drugs I import at a cheaper price, the government will use violence to stop me (including potential enslavement for a few years).
That's a difference, yes, but orthogonal to the topic.
As a businessman, as much as you can direct the behavior of both your customers and your employees, you can influence the lawmakers. After all, they too want money or things that money can buy.
Violence is just one side of the coin that is power. The other side is voluntary (or technically voluntary but not quite) participation, which is primarily controlled by money. That's what makes politics and markets intertwined.
Then healthcare shouldn’t be a business because the natural result of refusing to provide it to those in need is injury and possibly death. That seems a greater and more imminent threat that people in the US face than most forms of state violence.
It's also pretty natural to not want to die because of an error on your credit report. Imagine, for a moment, that some other cwzwarich filed for bankruptcy a few years ago. By some (incredibly common) mistake, their bankruptcy ends up on your credit report. And you go in to the Emergency Room with a potentially life-threatening injury.
The doctor runs credit on you before providing treatment, and because of this erroneous bankruptcy that you may not even know about(credit reports can only be reviewed once per year), you are placed in the hallway instead of being given a private bay despite the increased risk of infection. The hospital wanted to make room for paying customers, you see.
So while it's natural to want to "sell" to "profitable customers" in this case applying free market principals to this makes a complete mockery of our health care system. And given the credit bureaus' track records of high inaccuracy and difficulty in disputing the reports, you're likely to get poorer treatment inexplicably, and entirely by accident.
I don't think that health care (or the things you mention) should be treated as a market. I was only responding to the claim that this is a "cartel market" and not basic market behavior.
Gotcha. I've asked myself those questions to probe my feelings. I think things are going to get pretty ugly as the US starts to grapple with this again.
Maybe finding new ways for the market isn't the best approach. What about publicly shaming the people who profit off of this?
I remember there was a big outrage about Martin Shkreli's actions. Meanwhile the CEOs of these companies probably get lauded in business magazines.
Calling these miserable, greedy, selfish bastards out for what they are could be a first step. God, how I'm hoping for a socialist revolution to take place within my lifetime...
What about publicly shaming the people who profit off of this?
We've seen that this is something that absolutely doesn't work. They (that's the people who matter) just find a scapegoat and everyone else carries on just as before. Shkreli ended up in prison, but Valeant is still busy making profit off the backs of patients, and despite Hillary Clinton's professed outrage prices for such drugs as Syprine haven't gone down a penny. Netflix has a documentary on the case.
Where is the revolution? Where is single-payer healthcare?
Americans don't want single-payer healthcare. If they did, they'd be voting for it. Instead, they (especially poor, rural voters) strongly vote for the party that says they're keeping "socialism" out of healthcare.
Americans are getting exactly what they voted for.
A socialist revolution? Do you mean that you'd like the US to become more like Sweden, a social democracy? Because it bears repeating, there is not a single desirable place to live on Earth that is not primarily governed by free market forces, including Sweden. Sweden, Norway, Canada...these are not socialist states.
Also, let's be clear about one more thing. Martin Shkreli is not a free market capitalist, he's a crony. Leveraging state patent systems to create abusive monopolies is not free market capitalism, that is textbook crony capitalism and the enemy of a free market. Without arbitrary state enforcement of medical patents on insulin and epipens, do you think that these would be exceedingly expensive items? Are you being bankrupted by Benadryl? Hardly.
There are absolutely elements of healthcare that are far better serviced by a command economy than a free market, and I think the weird hybrid system in the US is the worst of both worlds in many such cases. But a socialist revolution? Socialism is an authoritarian nightmare that cannot suitably answer any question related to scarcity or competence.
The thing you're missing about "free market capitalism" is that, in the USA today, our "free market capitalism" absolutely does include state patent systems leveraged to create abusive monopolies. You might call it "crony capitalism", and you claim that it's not "true" "free market capitalism" (which sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy to me), but the fact is, one of two major political parties in this country does say that what we have now, and what they want to retain, is "free market capitalism".
As for "socialism", again you're disagreeing on definitions. To most Americans, Sweden, Norway, Canada, etc. are "socialist".
Almost no product that you use is subject to abusive state monopolies, which is why almost every product you use is competitively priced. So no, free market capitalism is not indistinguishable from crony capitalism.
As far as definitions go, my definition of "socialism" is actual socialism, not social democracy. This quote is overused at this point, but Danish PM Rasmussen explicitly clarifies "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy." Adding central planning to ameliorate some of the rough edges of market economies does not create a socialist state.
>As far as definitions go, my definition of "socialism" is actual socialism, not social democracy.
Again, most Americans will disagree with you. The definition of a word is whatever most people agree it is.
>This quote is overused at this point, but Danish PM Rasmussen explicitly clarifies
No one in Denmark has any authority to define a word in the English language as used by Americans.
>Adding central planning to ameliorate some of the rough edges of market economies does not create a socialist state.
According to Americans, it absolutely does.
>So no, free market capitalism is not indistinguishable from crony capitalism.
Again, according to many Americans it is.
Here's a challenge for you: pick out 100 different rural counties across America. Go to each county, and take a poll, asking them, "Is Denmark a socialist country?" I guarantee you that a clear majority of those polled will answer "yes".
If this conversation is now between whether "socialism" means "socialism" or "social democracy" to you, I actually don't care. As long as you are not advocating for a revolution that results in actual socialism, then I have no problem with you.
I'm not advocating for anything. All I'm doing is attempting to point out that it's really hard to have a rational discussion about something when people can't agree on basic concepts and definitions. And the problem in America now is this: we can't even agree on what "socialism" is, or whether we want it or not.
Just try having a conversation with the average American voter (esp. in rural districts) about "socialism" vs. "social democracy" vs. whatever, and see how far you get. They're probably going to say Denmark is "socialist" because they saw it on Fox News. But these are the people electing the leadership here (or about half of it anyway). We have two "sides", and even many on your side probably would have a hard time with these concepts. It's no wonder things are so broken here, and I don't see how it can get better any time soon when the two sides can't even have a rational discussion because they can't even agree on basic language or concepts.
Have you seen the number of MacBooks at MIT, or Google's or any other tech company's campus? The difference between your notion and reality should really motivate you to question your assumptions.
The two most glaring errors are, first, that "advanced users" wouldn't care about ease-of-use. And, second, that "advanced users" would care about price as much as you do.
Apple is great hardware, an OS that works and that doesn't constantly bother you with notification (the most glaring problem with Windows, when I last used it a decade ago), and a native Unix underneath.
Also, if you buy a Mac that's a few years old, you still get a great computer at a low, low price. I picked up an 11" air for under $400 off eBay and have used it to build a startup that supported me and my support person. Ran dev tools fine, ran browsers fine, and even though it was years old the battery life was fine.
You don't need the new hotness to get good and useful work done.
I wanted full control over settings and programs when I was 14. Decades later now, I want an environment that works and gets out of my way and gives me access to the tools I want to program with.
> I wanted full control over settings and programs when I was 14. Decades later now, I want an environment that works and gets out of my way and gives me access to the tools I want to program with.
Sorry - I though he was being a bit juvenile and felt like being similarly dismissive was appropriate.
I regularly switch between MacOS, Windows, and desktop Linux both for work and for home; I love fiddling around with settings and configurations to get things to work, but only sometimes and only when it’s on my terms. The rest of the time I just want it to work, out of the box or off the install disk.
I’m always going to love tinkering with Arch from time to time, but then I get my work done on Fedora or similar.
Ok, I get what you meant. And I won't deny sometimes I too get frustrated when I can't find the driver for some hardware on Linux or have to download some source code and compile it.
But I will still never accept Apple's approach of total control and deciding for its user. Each of us have different needs and expectations from our computer. And there is no way, even with all the spying that Apple does, that it can provide a "perfect environment" for each of it users. It just isn't true and not possible. So restricting customisation, in the name of security but in reality to limit and control the user from making any changes without "contributing" to Apple's profit, is just bad for us consumers.
I was thinking the same. It's inviting a world of hurt when your assets get frozen across the platform because someone else used it as part of their fraud scheme.
Like most providers, it does depend. Some products are priced very competitively while others seem over-the-top. For smaller companies, the cloud is a cheaper starting point for many systems but even for larger organisations, there are savings to be made by outsourcing your servers. Do you know how much it costs to install and maintain a decent air-con system for your server room?
One of the other major advantages of cloud is that you can save a lot in support staff. Compare the wages of even 1 decent sysadmin looking after your own hardware compared to several thousand dollars of AWS and it's still loads cheaper. Hardware upgrades, OS updates etc. are often automatic or hidden.
I'm not sure the government failing, for whatever reason, to hold private organizations and individuals to account for their wrongdoing is quite a clear, blanket argument against government power, in favor of the power of private organizations and individuals.
I don't. People vote against their best interests all the time. The SF housing market is self-inflicted from people voting against new housing, because many of them don't understand the concept of supply and demand.
Neither markets nor democracy are perfect, but at least free markets are efficient.
> many of them don't understand the concept of supply and demand.
Or they understand supply and demand perfectly well, and figured out that if they legislatively block new development, fixed supply + growing demand = rising home prices = better investment.
It seems strongly that former requires the latter. Without markets you have a totalitarian state. And black markets. Everyone everywhere wants and needs to trade, for themselves and their families.
The idea of genuine democracy is the loyal opposition. You dochange the government, regularly, without collapsing everything into anarchy.
Endemic corruption will lead to systemic collapse. This makes it worthwhile to vote the best corruption reform candidates regardless of ideology or party.
Democrats have voted Trump, Republicans support Bernie on that basis. It's not completely silly.
I don't think it's as black-and-white as government bad private sector good.
People do bad things and we've been trying to fix our selves for a long time now.
We need to take personal responsibility for our own actions, and be honest and transparent, ready to accept the repercussions for what we have done. I'm speaking directly to individuals involved here, but I'm also speaking for and to all of us.
It's scary to come out about how fucked up we are, but it's how to heal.
We need to stand up and openly repent when we have done wrong. We need to stop defending and hiding our own evil.
Ahh, the good ol' "Firefox is too slow for me to consider it" statement. Is there any evidence that Firefox is slower then Chrome other than old lingering memories of Firefox being slow ten years ago?
I have used both Firefox and Chrome and I can't subjectively tell that one is significantly faster or slower than the other. To be fair, I only have a handful of extensions and rarely have more than ten tabs open at a time, so my use case may be atypical.
I love that Firefox exists and Quantum is an amazing step forward, but Firefox still regularly runs away with gigabytes of RAM and hung worker processes. I have no problem with long-lived Chrome sessions but I need to restart Firefox ~daily. It's not bad memories of 10-years ago.
I've been using Firefox as my daily browser at work, home, and on my mobile devices, and I've literally never had issues with Firefox taking up too much RAM. Chrome on the other hand was always one of the main culprits when my computer(s) would start to slow down.
This is the problem with anecdotal evidence; everybody's subjective experiences are slightly different and further colored with their own biases, so you can never get hard facts out of it.
I've been using FF for a couple of months and I get huge random CPU spikes on my MBP that go away once I restart it. It works fine on my iMac and Windows tower though albeit JS execution seems slower (I mostly work on front end stuff).
It also seems to consume more battery on Android than Chrome although I admit I've never made any serious testing.
Could it be because people who like their browser tend to tell others about it? I have absolutely nothing to do with Mozilla but I think the internet would be a better place if more people used Firefox.
Firefox isn't too slow, but you might be talking about how Google optimise their sites for Chrome at the expense of Firefox's performance through browser sniffing.
It's not odd at all. It's what the folks at Mozilla do. They jump in to every thread to push Firefox and Rust and make people think it's more widely used/better than it is.
Not everything is a conspiracy. I'm not a Mozilla employee, have never been one (probably never will be one). Firefox is awesome, fast, and extensible. It's my daily driver for all of my machines.
Side question: I've been trying to switch to firefox as my main browser but one thing is holding me up. When I'm using a private window, cookies are not shared between private tabs. I can see the advantage to that behavior, but is there a way to share them so that I can be logged into the same site in multiple private tabs? Unironically, I haven't had any luck googling this problem.
If you open a new tab from an existing tab, your session persists across tabs. So, for example, middle clicking on the Hacker News logo will preserve your HN session across tabs.
Huh, this is how I expected it to work and it does work for hacker news but it doesn't work for one site I want it to work for. I'll have to dig deeper, thanks.
You can make as many separate containers as you like, where each tab shares the cookies with all the other tabs in that container. For example, I have a Facebook container that only shares with Messenger and none of the other tabs. I can see it works because sites that are logged in on one container are not logged in on others. It's easy to right-click and reopen a tab in one of your other containers.
I think most people who advocate Firefox are not Mozilla employees. I am for sure not one, I do not even like Mozilla, but they are a much lesser evil compared to Google. And I think having multiple competing browsers is vital for preventing the internet for becoming a walled garden owned by some big corporation.
If you want to look at why people are poor, I would look towards corruption rather than merely inequality. Or maybe people in a country are poor on paper but can afford a hundred dollars of luxuries a week.
Using gini reminds me of GIGO. You used a poor metric for information, your decisions are going to be poor.
HN is a community and we want it to remain one. For that, users need some identity for others to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Otherwise anything an Apple product can do, a competitor does cheaper and better.