While we're at it, I guess we should kick out all the descendants of Europeans, etc, and the only people who should be able to get jobs and count as true citizens are the direct descendants of the Native Americans.
What an offensive comment. You earn the benefits of citizenship by paying taxes, and ideally participating in your community (though _many_ americans also just disappear into their houses and watch tv / tiktok instead of being part of the community, both first generation citizens and people from a longer line of citizens).
First generation american citizens are every bit as much citizens as nth generation citizens. They all pay taxes equally and are subject to the same laws.
I guess satire doesn't come across in a thread where it fits in too well. My point was threefold:
1. The definition of American is not as black and white as people would like to think, so who is included and not included in "we Americans" is pretty nebulous. As a recent example, the debate over birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment.
2. Who should suffer the consequences of taking advantage of the H1B program? The workers hired under it? The business owners who hired them? The policy makers? If companies were truly 'scamming' the government as the parent comment said, it sounds like the owners of those companies should be punished, perhaps to a degree commensurate with the other anecdotes in this thread of lives being upended and people separated. As the parent comment said: "Sorry...but not sorry"
3. "Immigrants are taking jobs from Americans" is a refrain almost as old as this country is but is also not as clear cut as some users here seem to think. Not to mention that it's a very convenient political tool often used to redirect the anger of the poor or marginalized towards immigrants instead of the business owners and those with power who flaunted the law but will not be held to account. I guess "companies who hire illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans" just doesn't roll off the tongue in the same way.
> If I enter China on a temporary work permit visa, with a 15 year plan to obtain Chinese citizenship, no one will have sympathy for me if that plan is interrupted
I would have sympathy for you if it was interrupted by suddenly changing the requirements through no action of your own.
Like, if you commit a crime, are a belligerent drunk, or whatever and they don't renew your visa over that, I have no sympathy.
If you're unable to secure employment for an extended period of time, and they don't renew your visa, I also have less sympathy since that's part of the bargain you knew going in.
If you play by the rules, but they reject a visa renewal for a reason like "we have too many immigrants from $x country, so we're rejecting y% of renewals" , well that's legally within the government's rights to do, but I'll have sympathy for you and think that you're morally in the right and China's failing its duty to its foreign residents.
Likewise, this US one is a case of capricious rejection, the US government is not holding up its end of the deal you both thought you were agreeing to. Like, the deal with a work visa, even if it's not permanent, is "if you follow the rules and keep good steady employment, you can live here, but yes it's conditional on the work thing".
I have sympathy for this hypothetical you, and also I have sympathy for those holding american visas who are impacted.
They still don't let me install uBlock origin + noscript. Whitelisting per-domain and per-site what can run Javascript does more for my privacy than anything else, and I can do that with firefox on linux and android, but on iOS I'm not allowed to install firefox.
There's obviously no real technical limitation since if you live in the EU you can sideload an alternative browser in theory (though apple has made it unrealistic in practice since they're ignoring the spirit of the law and instead doing their darndest to resist giving users even a whit of freedom).
They also don’t allow you to install Windows executables. They do allow you to run adblockers designed for Safari, like Wipr, and there are any number of noscript-alikes, like StopTheScript. I’m not saying that to be snarky, but to say that different platforms have different ways of doing things.
And Firefox is in the iOS App Store. I know what you meant to say, and that it’s not the same as Firefox on Android, but it’s wrong to say you’re not allowed to install Firefox.
Since Apple specifically disallows using other web engines on the App Store, I have bad news for you : Firefox on the App Store is just a reskinned safari and as such, a lot of features cannot be implemented because they depend on the web rendering engine.
I also can't use Safari because I want my tabs and bookmarks to sync between my desktop machine (linux) and my phone (iOS), and Safari is the only major browser which can't do that.
Not to mention Safari is just an inferior browser which seems possibly designed to hold back Progressive Web Apps so that everyone has to make app-store apps and tithe a percent of all profits to apple.
In recent history, we performed dozens of violent coups and destroyed countries in the name of overthrowing communist regimes.
China has a totalitarian government, but it's existing more in harmony with the world than the US government has for all of my life, so I don't think you can say that the Chinese government will conflict with other countries while in the same breath implying the US government is better.
You're going to find China's history as wanting as the US's in that regard. Plenty of Chinese arms found their way to theaters of war in all corners of the globe during the latter half of the 20th century, and continue to do so in the Donbas today.
Or maybe you can look into what happens to nations in China's immediate neighborhood that resist Beijing's designs.
North Korea, a prison camp masquerading as a country, exists solely because of China. Had Mao not intervened on behalf of the Kim family, UN forces would have asserted control up to the Yalu. To this day, the Chinese have been breaking international law by helping Pyongyang dodge sanctions over the DPRK's nuclear weapons program. Same with Russia, actually, despite them both sitting on the UNSC, which passed the sanctions.
China also illegally occupies Tibet and has for over 75 years.
All of this points to a country very much not existing in harmony with the world.
As far as the US government being better, it's not about any given government being better. It's about whether or not totalitarianism can continue on peacefully. It cannot. This is evident on its face.
The iMessage app does both SMS, and the iMessage protocol. Apple could have released an android app to let you have blue bubbles on android and communicate securely without any of the constraints of SMS by simply releasing "iMessage for Android".
Somehow Signal, Whatsapp, Telegram, Discord, WeChat, LINE, KakaoTalk, etc etc all manage to have both iOS and Android apps that can message each other, but for some reason the richest company in the world, Apple, cannot manage to port its chat app to one additional platform?
It is 100% Apple's fault that messaging between iOS and Android has had so much dumb "green bubble" friction.
Apple's conflation of the SMS and iMessage protocols has also made it harder for people to realize what's happening. Frankly, Apple should have had two apps from the start (Text Message and iMessage), one of which only spoke SMS, and the other of which only spoke iMessage.
Sure they could've provided a solution, but they didn't create the problem. And they're not a charity. It's like blaming Nvidia for not giving away CUDA for free/cheap.
Btw everyone knows whether they're using iMessage or SMS, that's the whole bubble color thing.
> Btw everyone knows whether they're using iMessage or SMS, that's the whole bubble color thing.
Everyone sorta knows, but because iMessage "feels" like it's just the native messaging app on the phone, it makes people feel like the issue is android (why don't android phones come with this super-sms built in?) rather than apple for not making the app available broadly.
If it were a separate app, then perhaps the EU would have regulated "when setting up iOS, you must get a default option between iMessage, Whatsapp, Telegram, Signal, etc, you must be able to change the default messaging app", and forcing people to install it would make it more obvious that this is Apple implementing a proprietary chat protocol, not Apple just doing SMS better than android.
> they didn't create the problem. And they're not a charity.
Apple did create the problem by creating a walled garden messaging app, banning beeper for implementing the iMessage protocol for android, and tying some of the phone's core functionality to this built-in app in an anti-competitive way.
A certain amount of industry interoperability should be expected. If you make a browser, it should be able to load competitors websites (which nice, safari can load google.com, good work). If you make a computer that can install arbitrary software, you should allow anyone to install software they wrote freely (oops, apple missed that one). And if you make a messaging app or social media app, you should make it support all major operating systems people use so that people can switch their operating systems and phones without losing touch with their friends. I should still be able to facetime my grandma even if I switch to linux because gosh knows she's not going to learn a new video call app.
I get if you want it that way with all social apps being cross-platform, but Apple didn't make the rules. And if it were like that, they'd probably not have invested so much in iMessage, and SMS would be the thing, which would at least be cross-platform.
What Orion's doing is horribly hacky and prone to cause issues with a multitude of addons, and of course Mozilla shouldn't bow to Apple's incredibly anti-competitive behavior.
You pay apple for a phone that can act more-or-less as a general purpose computer with apps. Apple should let you install the apps you want, and that they don't do so is insulting.
The fact that the EU and Japan ruled it illegal, and Apple responded by only changing it in those two countries instead of all countries is doubly insulting.
Not only that, but the "entitlement" (Apple lingo for code-signature flag that grants capabilities) needed to publish a browser effectively requires to be an established company, ensuring hobbyists can't really get there with an open-source project even though the sources of Firefox are available and could technically be ported.
It goes well beyond requiring an established company. It's so onerous that no company has yet successfully navigated all the gates required - even Google. Apple is maliciously complying with the EU's Digital Rights Act, and many years later, the EU has not concluded its investigations. I am incredibly disappointed.
If WebKit is superior, they have nothing to worry about. They are worried because WebKit is not superior. Partly because Apple has worked diligently to ensure WebKit wrappers cannot compete with native apps. It undermines their entire business model. So if Chromium were made available, people would flock to it. I am not in favour of forcing people to use inferior technology for no other reason than it prevents Chromium retaining dominance. Competition is good and Apple should be forced to improve WebKit.
I don’t care why they do it. It’s just nice that their interests and my interests are aligned on this.
I care about the open web and see setting Google up for a monopoly on web browsers to be just about the worst thing that could happen. A duopoly isn’t much better, but it is better.
It's not a great alternative though. After all, Apple doesn't even provide a version of Safari for non-Apple platforms. They used to, but they stopped with the windows version years ago.
And not everyone on Mac uses Safari of course, I didn't use it much when I still was on Apple because Firefox could sync my bookmarks with all my other computers.
On mobile it's a different story of course (they are at 31% there, and nobody is allowed to run a different engine) but a browser isn't so important there because most services have en app.
Not sure your point. You claimed "Nobody would install chrome on iOS even if they could". That is provably false by easily checkable usage metrics. Heck, You can just go to the App Store and see it's one of the top downloaded apps.
there is sites that simply don't work in safari, I have family that sometimes I have to help them do something by opening what they want on my android phone that does support chrome and firefox. In order to accomplish their tasks. It would be great if apple supported other browsers
We need laws that make Apple's business model illegal. No more walled gardens, including game consoles. If you sell a Universal Machine (or product containing a Universal Machine), then the owner/purchaser/leasee must have full control of the Universal Machine.
Just like the laws against bad cars are called "Lemon Laws," call these new laws against bad Universal Machines "Apple Laws." Forever memorialize AAPL in this negative light to warn its future successors what happens when you act in anti-customer ways even when technically not illegal to do so.
By the same logic, we could also use "Anthropic Laws" to curb the nanny-moralism of model guardrails too!
Personally I'm happy to carve out an exception for game consoles. Other than play games I don't do anything essential to my life on my game consoles. On my phone though I bank, shop, book hotels, flights, make doctors appointments, etc...
I'm sure there is some definition we could use that exempts game consoles and not smartphones. For example, I'm sure the game consoles would be happy to live under the restriction of never allowing banking apps, non-media shopping apps, hotel apps, flight apps, medical services apps.
Are they? I've built a few Firefox extension and I cannot recall any part of the API that is Gecko-specific. While parts of the API aren't entirely browser-agnostic, they definitely seem to be engine-agnostic.
True, but I don't see how that answers the original question of "why does Firefox not support extensions on iOS?". Clearly extensions can run on WebKit. I assume it has much more to do with Apple restrictions rather than with the fact addons are built for Gecko.
Its not as simple as extensions running on webkit. Webkit is just a component. Extensions are basically apps. Apple goes through a lot of trouble to make it so you cant build an app platform inside your own app. Not saying impossible. But non trivial. Its not as simple as “webkit runs extensions”
The law that requires allowing alternative browsers, the DMA, applies to the entire EU.
But I believe there are still zero third party browsers, to publish their browser in the EU Mozilla need an EU development team because developers outside the EU are unable to install it, and Mozilla cannot publish it as their existing app. Enforcement is taking years.
Their approach yielded arguably the least exploitable general purpose computing devices that people ever actually wanted, without making people feel they were crippled, in a market where there are thousands of alternatives.
It's been wildly successful and, like nearly everyone, I'm fine it.
:( where’s the hacker ethos here? I suppose you have a nice Linux machine or something you customize as you see fit, and you can make calls and listen to podcasts on your phone and that’s good enough for on the go…?
I want grandma to have a locked-down iPhone but I want to be able to go through a process to be able to own my own iPhone. Doesn’t feel fine to have something crippled unless maybe it’s rented or something. Or my phone’s in an HOA.
It’s a combination of Stockholm syndrome, having an expensive phone as a status symbol, and corporate worshiping.
It also makes me “:(“ when I think of an alternate reality of where phones were as customizable and open as a plain old desktop. Open boot loader, manu supported open drivers (no blobs).
Makes me seriously consider Ubuntu touch / graphene or something else and a $200 low end / 2nd hand locked-down phone for everything else.
Both Ubuntu and GrapheneOS don't allow you to fully control you phone like Linux desktop does. However Librem 5/Pinephone can run PureOS/postmarketOS that do.
Sure, but even when (or if) it these issues get fixed, it will all be academic unless the devices can run the apps that normies want (or "need"). Up to and including the OS-level wallet app that unbricks the NFC chip, and all the banking and similar "high-security" apps that increasingly require some kind of device attestation to run at all. The trend is all in one direction.
It's easy to say, "Just don't use that stuff". But if everyone wants ("needs") it and we don't have it, then we're left with a <1% user base of activists and eccentrics. And at that point we've lost all influence on the ongoing slide towards surveillance dystopia. It's dispiriting. I'm just hoping that somehow I've got something wrong in this pessimistic analysis.
You're not wrong, but everything starts with activists, and hopefully if enough activists start using such devices and demand services for them, something might change. I do my part.
>It’s a combination of Stockholm syndrome, having an expensive phone as a status symbol, and corporate worshiping.
Can any amount of pain cure stupid? I am still so baffled that AAPL is as market successful as they are, that I am forced to hate-long their stock while never buying their products (and telling others to not buy them either, which is going about as you would expect).
The warden is making the prison just nice enough to not cause riots, to put it vividly.
Most people won’t care or understand about this openness. Their needs are satisfied with the limitations. Similar to other freedoms we have (at least in the US), like speech, assembly.
I think it will take very brazen acts on Apple’s part (or other gatekeepers) to get the everyday Joe/Jane to care about things enough to learn more or look for alternatives.
Things like blocking certain websites, removing super popular apps for not following monopolistic rules
If and when I want a device I can tinker endlessly with, that’s very available to me already.
I have some of them.
What I don’t have is a desire to actively deny consumers a “just works” option that is extremely safe and reliable. No caveats. That would be of minor benefit to me and a detriment to many millions of people in general.
The market spoke, and a huge number of people want those. That’s fine and should remain their choice to make.
The real tragedy of outlawing Apples approach is that the only reason people want this ability is because Apple created this whole package that everyone wants.
tldr; It’s an extraordinarily selfish thing to insist on at everyone else’s expense. I’m ok doing without the one thing.
>If and when I want a device I can tinker endlessly with, that’s very available to me already.
>What I don’t have is a desire to actively deny consumers a “just works” option that is extremely safe and reliable. No caveats.
False dichotomy. Nothing about the latter means the former can't also be possible. Apple products disrespect customers in the name of the latter, telling them the former is dangerous and must be limited. I am concluding that only iron fisted pro-customer sovereignty "Apple Laws" can stop Apple and similar, as their customers themselves can't muster a wallet revolt against this business model.
Those two things are mutually exclusive here. You can't have that ecosystem and all the things people buy it for and have unrestricted control of it all. Those can't exist together.
And iPhone buyers aren't an oppressed people. They bought what they wanted in a market with alternatives.
The only anti-consumer position here is that those people should not be allowed to have that, anymore.
It's not the tinkering that's sociologically important, but the ability to install things like ICEBlock even though the government and OS vendor don't want you to.
I view Apple platform as crippling, and Google jealously trying to [slowly] pursue the same cripple model. Just because most customers are not educated enough to see the crippling aspects, doesn't mean it's not there. Sleek shiny-ness tends to hide that for normies.
Disclosure: proud GrapheneOS and Qubes OS user and never-subscriber.
There are some cases where ads are useful for sure.
For example, I found out about the local farmer's market in my city via advertisements being hung up around town, and that helped me get fresh produce and find some community. I'm not sure if I ever would have found that farmer's market otherwise.
I also found one job via a "Who's Hiring" hacker news post, and that's obviously an advertisement thread advertising open positions.
Of course, these do not balance out the negative impact of ads, such as advertising credit cards and sports gambling and gacha gambling games to get people into debt, advertising tv shows and movies to waste people's time watching garbage, and generally advertising garbage that makes people who were otherwise happy waste money and time for no real gain in life satisfaction.
I see, these are valid. Especially in smaller communities in rural areas ads can really help bringing people together. I live in a small village since about 2 years now and have NO idea what's going on here (as I don't watch/read ads). Sometimes thats sad, but usually I want to be left alone anyway. A farmers market sounds cool though.
I'd categorize job postings a bit differently, if Facebook was full of (legitimate) job postings I think it would be less of an issue. I agree on all the gambling stuff you wrote.
You basically pointed this out already but there’s a big difference between something designed to notify you about something you might not have known, similar to what you’d find on a community bulletin board, and something trying to manipulate you into buying something you don’t need at all.
I think a lot of people use the term “ad” to refer solely to the latter category. This goes back to the origin of modern advertising (and even earlier with snake oil salesman and charlatans, which were scamming merchants using music and stage shows lol — sound familiar?) and using the term “public relations” as an alternative to “propaganda”.
Just because some people are more resilient to opium, and some people can have a good time on it, doesn't mean you should get an opium injection when you're going for a regularly scheduled doctor's appointment.
Ads are being forced on you when you're trying to do something else, like you go to facebook to see your actual friend's pictures of their kids, you're not looking for ads, and yet you get some micro-brainwashing on the side.
The true "skill issue" is that governments are too unskilled to prevent these mass mental attacks to prey upon their citizens, and haven't gotten off their ass enough to make advertisement even more illegal than other similarly harmful substances like opium, tobacco, and online gambling (both sports gambling and gacha games).
Those apps where you share pics or whatever would not exist without ads if people had to pay for them.
So I am not sure if all is bad in that sense. Bc it lets the apps for sharing without people having to pay to exist in the first place.
I am not doing any assessment regarding to the toxicity of ads. I am just trying to objectively say that this also spreads "horizontally" software for free in some sense.
> Those apps where you share pics or whatever would not exist without ads if people had to pay for them.
This is a wild assertion.
Were we not able to build roads before billboards were invented? Does your telephone company interrupt your call with ads? Does the postal service open your letters to insert a leaflet with promotional offers? What alternate universe do people who claim this live in???
They would exist, but would be less spread. I am not saying it is good or bad. I am saying that if the barrier to entry is lowest, more people can reach it.
This is a fact with almost anything that you look at around you, not only software. Any incentives in general.
Also, people prefer to have ads than to pay for something. You will say ads are worse or whatever, and you can be right. But the fact is that people that do not pay for software have no problem in being monetized. Otherwise free apps would not have users and paying apps would have a lot. But the reality is that paid apps have a higher barrier to entry from the point of view of users reached.
The only alternative to ads isn't people directly paying cash to evil private companies.
Like, the fact that instagram's average revenue per user is around $25 means that instagram ads are, on average, tricking people into buying 100s of dollars of crap they don't need.
If the ads weren't successfully brainwashing people, eventually people would stop buying ads presumably.
... But yes, I agree people will generally choose a "brainwashed consumer" tax to the tune of $300/year over paying instagram $25/year.
So, what's the solution? Advertisement should be illegal, the government should tax everyone a bit more, and taxpayer dollars should go to making ad-free social networks where people can post pictures of their dog.
Like, having highways and electricity and the internet was seen as beneficial, so the government has subsidized a huge amount of infrastructure for those things, to the benefit of all.
If being able to search the largest collection of knowledge ever created, the internet, has value to the people, the government should create or subsidize an ad-free search engine. If communicating has such value, the government should create or subsidize a messaging app that doesn't brainwash the users.
To add to this, government-run services can't absolve themselves of all wrongdoing with Terms of Service they can change on a whim. Censorship within government-run social media is subject to the restrictions placed on the government's control of speech.
(Technically, the terms are still there but they're called Titles and Statutes and other things that require a bunch of ceremony and agreement to change, not just an email.)
The Go std library, as well as practically all go library code, is full of things that don't fully initialize all properties and things that nil-pointer-panic if you hold them wrong, so no, no matter what you do you have to deal with this wart of Go.
The go type-system is simply incapable of enforcing nil-safety without being no longer able to compile the go stdlib nor most code in the wild, so it's a quite valid criticism of the go type-system and language, and your comment doesn't hit on a valid solution.
You're painting a picture where people writing Go are constantly drowning in nil pointer panics. This is not reality. You hit them occasionally and they're trivial to understand and fix.
nil pointer panics aren't nearly as bad as values getting zero initialized, then used in places that assume they were initialized, and getting subtle bugs because the state is inconsistent.
I always wonder how those types of mistakes make it through your test suite. You'd need some kind of non-deterministic path to reaching the unintended zero value — but it would need to be a non-deterministic path that you wouldn't make deterministic during testing. I think we'd be curious to see what that code looks like.
Again, it happens, but the impact is wildly overstated. I get so confused with people saying "once it compiles, it probably works" (regardless of language). The problems I struggle with need invariants that can't be expressed by any modern language features.
Apple isn't omnipotent, they have misses too.
reply