Personally, I'm kind of amused by the appalled and horrified tech bloggers I see posting about the sky falling. I keep reading about "life long" Apple users threatening to switch ecosystems because of an SD card slot. Or function keys. I mean, people must step through A LOT OF CODE to have that impact this kind of decision.
My perspective is biased by my moving in the opposite direction. I'm just in the process of considering a transition TO Apple after being a lifelong windows user. My current build is a top of the line XPS 15 (2015). It's... disappointing. The touchpad already broke. I went through at least 3 warranty visits before the wifi finally worked halfway decent. Windows is becoming less and less what I want it to be. I use it purely for coding, but when I do jump online for a few minutes it manages to be slower than my ipad. Basically, I want a simple, fast, productivity OS that just works (sorry). I don't want it to show me ads and I'm beyond the point where I derive any satisfaction whatsoever from tinkering or configuring it to be perfect. I just want it to work well and work consistently.
Although consensus seems to be that their software is getting worse, from what I see it feels like Apple is the one making the devices that can accomplish what I'm looking for - and a big part of that is the hardware. Still, I'm interested to hear what people say about elementary OS.
It appears that the Startup/issuer sets a static offering price [0]. When I envision how crowdsourced investing would reinvent this space, a huge component of the value added would be a degree of price-elasticity and feedback. It doesn't have to be a full-on auction, but getting the pricing right (for the issuer) seems like THE killer feature here... (thinking back to the concept of how Google priced their IPO )[1]. Offering a product that facilitated more innovative pricing structures at offering would be extremely compelling - and would greatly increase Republic.co's target market as well.
SF's legendary rent control creates a clear incentive for landlords to use a service like Airbnb to continually rent at market rate (though lower occupancy rate) while maintaining control to allocate the unit as they see fit. Renting a unit in sf both freezes rental revenue and removes the owners control to reallocate the unit.
If a well-funded superpac would systematically and indefinitely try every legal exploit to re-enact slavery you'd be grinning each attempt because "democracy"? ....
The idea that our form of government allows us the freedom to resist predatory laws is inspiring, the necessity to fight that fight... over and over again... is the best representation that true freedom is delicate.
To protect that freedom we need to hold critical thinking above all else to guard ourselves against the faux intellectualism of statements like yours.
It's disgusting that we treat humans like this. A reasonable person can understand perspectives on both sides of many contemporary hot topics, but I see no such leeway here.
Isn't it time we stand up and simply fix something which is so clearly broken?
I don't disagree with you. I'm not being an Apple apologist, just commenting why from their viewpoint it makes sense to bring the very best features into the fold of standard, native, functionality.
A big part of Apple's product appeal is the ecosystem, and a big part of the ecosystem is that amazing features simply work, and work well. They don't have to be configured or hunted for. Taken a step further, the problems some of these new features solve don't even have to be fully apparent to the user.
To that end, Apple improves their ecosystem by making good features standard. Tim Cook mentioned that there were 1 billion Apple devices in circulation. How many of those do you think have users that were even aware of the existence of those two apps? Or even the problem that they address?
I'm not a fan of any bigCo squashing innovative software (and I'm certainly not defending it), but there's no question that in cases like this bringing that feature into the fold leads to a better user experience across the board. To those of us who knew the circumstances it might be cringeworthy, but for the other 98% of users it's just another advance in a progression of features that keeps the ecosystem's user-experience better than any other.
That's right. However, there are still indexes, even if they aren't necessary for traversal. Ideally you'll use an index to find a start node and traverse on from there (or in the case of your question, update from there).
There are myriad pros/cons between graph/relational/nosql, but to me, a "real" graph db will have index free adjacency, allowing it to do deep traversals (friend of a friend-of a friend-oaf-oaf....) in constant time. It finds it's value in traversal of deeply connected datasets.
Any article or comparison that doesn't at least try to explain index free adjacency isn't going to make a compelling case for a graphdb, let along a native graph db. One reason for that may be that many "graph" databases don't have index free adjacency, so have worst than expected deep traversal characteristics.
Perhaps the average user is more tech and social-tech savvy now than then. That would be my guess. It feels like there are a lot of things now that seem intuitive that would've been a bridge too far for the average user to figure out 6 years ago.
VERY interesting. Thanks for posting. I wasn't familiar with CALEA.
For clarity, a CALEA type approach wouldn't compel a company to ACTIVELY subvert their own systems (as in Apple creating new tools for the Gov't to achieve that end under All Writs).
Instead, CALEA would force companies to create LESS secure systems from the start which could then be subverted passively (no All Writs component) on request to allow for "lawful intercept". Is that a fair characterization?
But in sum, a legal argument based on CALEA. Makes sense. Thanks-
Ha - thanks. :) I'll watch it. But I'm specifically asking here because I'm trying to understand and learn from the rational arguments. There's never a challenge finding inflammatory or disingenuous ones, and there's not much to learn from them either (on either side of most topics - not unique to this one).
The 'legal warrants' part that you said is interesting. I'm not sure I'd heard that thought clearly articulated. The idea that when a legal warrant is issued the Gov't should have access to everything. Something to consider.
Can someone ELI5 a typical opinion in support of the Government's case? I've read through various comments and I haven't seen a concise opinion in favor and am genuinely curious.
Does it boil down to (1) trust that the Government won't abuse the existence of the tool and (2) trust that the tool will never be leaked?
Or is it more fundamental - that the target data is so valuable that the ends justify the means?
I know it's more nuanced than that, but I think - in particular -someone's view on the All Writs component just follows their view on the above in most cases.
[edit]: I'm considering this a research sub-thread, not a debate sub-thread. Trying to understand, not convince. So forgive me for not responding one way or the other.
It's not that specific. It's everywhere. I see it all the time in programming terminology.
There are technical terms that annoy me when I first hear them. It appears people are trying to inflate their worth by using unnecessarily specific or complicated terms. Then on some random night when I'm bored I'll familiarize myself with the term and all its' nuances and from that point forward it's more efficient to use the formerly-annoying-and-seemingly-high-and-mighty term to communicate exactly what I mean in a single word or phrase.
That's just how language works. But like anything, some folks will latch onto anything to inflate what they bring to the table by over-complicating things.
Thankfully the divining rod for weeding these people out is often as simple as asking them two to three questions on the topic to discern if they're leveraging their vocabulary or hiding behind it.
I'm intrigued by the idea/necessity of some "non-omniscience" factor in weighing 4th amendment cases moving forward.
The argument is always that they're only tracking the "same views enjoyed by passersby on public roads", attempting to create a false equivalence between a camera and a human.
This has always been a pet peeve of mine, because there are factors that nullify the projected equivalence: each of these 'passersby' on the public road can only be in one place at one time. They are not omniscient. Further, there is an assumed limit to the amount of data they can collect (what can one person see from that street corner) and an assumed cost to the collection of that data (and therefore: even a government is limited in the scope of collection; they can't place an agent infront of every house on every street). These were the assumptions present in the time of the writing of the amendment. These assumptions only apply to the economics of humans, not cameras, and materially changes the effect of the law in the present day.
Courts will need a mechanism to articulate that a camera is not equivalent to a passerby. It's not a question of function, it's a question of scope. Much like anti-trust laws or regulations against cornering economic markets don't differentiate based on function, but the scope of the function. When it comes to privacy - the kind that the Fourth Amendment was written to protect - yes, placing agents on corners is substantially different than placing cameras on corners.