> The problem with this declaration by the government is that now any company doing any business with the US government would be effectively forbidden from using Anthropic ANYWHERE within their company
That is not true, even if the supply chain risk designation held. The sad thing is that so many people (myself included) also believed this, because this is what Hegseth said. He was lying. Thanks to another comment further down in this thread that led me to this page that explains what the supply chain risk designation actually does: https://www.justsecurity.org/132851/anthropic-supply-chain-r...
Thank you for your comment. I didn't understand, because I thought (and apparently lots of other people do, too) the supply chain risk designation does mean that, because that is exactly what Hegseth said.
Surprise, surprise, Hegseth was lying through his teeth. I'm so sick of this lawless, fascist government and their spineless supporters. This article I found after reading your comment explains the true effect of the supply chain risk designation, and why Hegseth's assertion that "effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic" is complete and total bullshit.
He wasn't lying. He just doesn't know anything. If you actually look at what this presidency says, it's pretty apparent that they're all pretty ignorant of just about everything. Which makes the fact that they have all of this power even more scary. At a moment's notice they could make an ignorant proclamation that harms the entire country, like unilaterally declaring 50% tariffs or declaring war on a nation that effectively controls most of the world's oil shipping.
Lol, so then cigarette makers weren't deliberately modifying drug levels in their product to addict smokers, they were "designing for retention".
More to the point, though, your comments here are all straw men. This was specifically a case about targeting children with addictive features of their products.
Nobody is arguing for "banning YouTube". But "the algorithm", and many user interface features explicitly designed to keep you going to the next video or down "YouTube rabbit holes", is what this case is about.
I know lots of adults who talk about "curing their phone addiction". I don't think someone would find it necessary to write a book "How To Break Up With Your Phone" (using what's referred to as a "digital detox program") if there weren't a substantial number of people who wanted to stop infinite scrolling behavior on their phone but found it difficult.
> the punchline "woman sues McDonalds for coffee being too hot" (distinct from that actual case, which was less ridiculous than the headline).
Whenever the McDonald's coffee case comes up, I always see caveats about how the actual case was a lot less sensational than the "woman sues McDonald's for coffee being too hot" headline implies.
I strongly disagree. I'm very familiar with the details of the actual case, and the Wikipedia article gives a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... . Yes, the plaintiff received horrific third degree burns when she spilled the coffee on herself, but lots of products can cause horrible harm if used incorrectly - people cut fingers off all the time with kitchen knives, for example.
I find the headline "Woman sues McDonald's for their coffee being too hot" a completely accurate description of what happened, with no hyperbole and no "ridiculousness" at all.
You neglected to mention:
- It was company policy to keep coffee excessively hot (180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, vs 140 or so for coffee brewed at home). This was to make customers drink it more slowly and request fewer refills
- Other customers had suffered similar burns, and McDonald's knew about it and did not change the policy
McDonald's, then, was willfully and inevitably causing injury to random customers in order to save themselves a few cents in coffee.
In light of those facts, I think a $2M verdict was too low, and the executives who decided to continue keeping the coffee that hot should have been criminally charged with reckless endangerment.
> 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, vs 140 or so for coffee brewed at home
Did you just make up that 140 number? To add to the other sibling comment, SCA (https://sca.coffee/) requires that water contacts the grounds at a temp of 195-205 F and that the coffee be at a temp of 175-185 up to 30 mins after brewing in order to certify home brewers:
> The SCA ensures that the brewer's carafe is appropriately sized for its designated machine and can maintain the coffee's warmth. Specifically, the brew must stay within the range of 176 °-185°F (80°-85°C) for at least 30 minutes post-brew. While retaining this warmth, the machine must never actively reheat the brew, ensuring the coffee's nuanced flavors remain intact. (from https://us.moccamaster.com/blogs/blog/certified-by-the-sca-m...)
Then you say
> Other customers had suffered similar burns, and McDonald's knew about it and did not change the policy
Again, lots of people cut their fingers off, accidentally, with knives. I don't think this means knife makers were "willfully and inevitably causing injury to random customers" because their product was too sharp.
Have other people never made coffee? Boiled soup? Been in a kitchen at all?
It wasn't just that the plaintiff spilled coffee on herself, it's that she spilled it while she was in her car and didn't immediately try to get it off (not blaming her, she was elderly). So yeah, I'm not surprised that spilling a very hot liquid on yourself and then sitting in it for an extended period causes severe burns.
I found this to be a very odd and strange rant. The author's three issues with Apple are:
1. Gatekeeping. OK, fine, but at the very least this has been Apple's stance for a very long time now (the author talks about faxing credit card details), so it's not like it's something new. If you wanted full unfettered installation rights, Apple was never the company for you. And while I think it's fine to argue against Apple's stance, I find most of the arguments are less than honest about the pros of things like developer verification for the end user.
2. mac OS26. I totally agree that this is a total fiasco from a design perspective, and liquid glass is unqualified shit. Still, I see Apple at least somewhat moving in the right direction by getting rid of Alan Dye.
3. Apple had a bug in their age verification protocol. Again, valid point, but Apple needs to follow UK law. I've seen a lot more missives arguing against requiring things like driver's licenses and other government ID, and so it seems like Apple is at least trying to go the least restrictive route by choosing credit card verification.
To emphasize, I'm not apologizing for Apple here. In particular, much has been written about how Apple has lost their way regarding the "it just works" philosophy. But it seems like the author's main beef is against Apple's level of control, and this is just a fundamental difference in Apple's stance that has existed for about 2 decades.
Author here. Thanks for engaging is such gentle way, this is rare these days. Let me address some of your comments and maybe you'll understand my position a bit better even if you don't agree.
> 1.Gatekeeping. OK, fine, but at the very least this has been Apple's stance for a very long time now (the author talks about faxing credit card details), so it's not like it's something new. If you wanted full unfettered installation rights, Apple was never the company for you. And while I think it's fine to argue against Apple's stance, I find most of the arguments are less than honest about the pros of things like developer verification for the end user.
Apple been tightening that control over time. For a long time on MacOS X you could simply run apps. Then came notarisation, but you could still disable it. Now, even with a certificate, it still shows a dialog. I wish that apps that went through notarisation would simply run like the ones from the app store without a dialog showing.
> 3. (...) the least restrictive route by choosing credit card verification.
But not everyone has a credit card. Those are not something you're born with or required to have or even required to have them issued from the same country you're living in. That is not the least restrictive, that is a very large assumption. What I would have liked to have seen is them providing you with options: "do you want to use credit card verification? National ID? Passport? Credit check? Etc" and then it is up to each user to decide on their risk profile and what they are okay with.
As of now, my only way to verify it is by literally ordering a credit card from my UK bank when I'm pretty happy with my debit cards already.
I am in the same situation. French citizen living in the UK. I never owned a credit card and I have no use for it.
I can't pass the age-verification. I am 49.
This alone is quite irritating, but the overall developer-hostility of Apple and the quality drift of their software is convincing me to never buy an iOS device again.
And I'll probably not release any software on their platforms either.
French-US citizen living in the UK as well. I am not experiencing this because I refuse to install iOS 26 on my iPhone, and like the OP I am transitioning away from Apple to Linux + GrapheneOS, and about 90% of the way there since I started 6 months ago.
> Apple been tightening that control over time. For a long time on MacOS X you could simply run apps. Then came notarisation, but you could still disable it. Now, even with a certificate, it still shows a dialog.
Notarisation is just proof that the app went through an automated malware scan.
Windows, Mac, and Android have all adopted measures intended to warn and attempt to protect users from malware.
As far as age verification goes, this is a restriction being forced on companies by governments.
Apple previously allowed parents to set age restrictions on their children, or not, as they saw fit.
You have to pay apple 150$ annually for the pleasure of notarisation, even if you make open-source apps. Yet you cannot distribute apps outside store on mobile (besides in eu, but not really, but is't topic on its own…).
yeah they're moving into the wrong direction as well. not to mention that notarisation is for after-the-fact anyways. malware still slips through (historically true!). it's just supposed to shrink the blast radius AFTER apple knows a binary is malware.
what does the scare modal of "are you really sure you wanna run this? could be bad dude..." do?
the only purpose i can see it serving is to push devs to use the AppStore on mac, which is highly restricted in what you can do, and of course, takes 30% of your revenue
that's the thing, it is not an option. The only option is credit card, that is what drove me nuts. If it had other options, it would still be bad, but I'd have a way to solve it even if made me angry. Now, the only way to solve this is literally to order a credit card from my bank and then use it. Which is bonkers.
I haven't tested this myself, but verifying with a driver's license should be supported [1]. Anecdotally, I've heard you have to fail the automatic Apple Wallet credit card verification, get to the screen where you're asked to input a credit card manually, and there should be something hidden in a corner that you can click to verify by uploading an ID.
It’s definitely an option in the UK, as I’ve just used it, though it’s not particularly prominent.
If you choose the option to verify with a credit card and scroll down the form, there’s an option to verify another way, which allows you to use your driving license.
>Apple been tightening that control over time. For a long time on MacOS X you could simply run apps. Then came notarisation, but you could still disable it. Now, even with a certificate, it still shows a dialog. I wish that apps that went through notarisation would simply run like the ones from the app store without a dialog showing.
The thing is, Apple has never been about developers, its main thing was to basically sell an image since its inception. A lot of people were excited about the iPhone when it first came out, and then they quickly realized how locked down it was, and how it didn't even have basic copy paste.
Even now, if you look at the AnE in the age of llms, all of it is locked down specifically because its only for Apple to use.
> As of now, my only way to verify it is by literally ordering a credit card from my UK bank when I'm pretty happy with my debit cards already.
This is not true. On the screen where it wants you to scan a credit card, tap “Enter details manually”. Scroll down. Tap “Try other methods”. And there, you’ll be offered to scan an ID or your driver’s license.
If you can use a debit card to buy stuff online, then it’s probably a visa or Mastercard, which would qualify as a “credit card” for identity verification.
Before people in other countries started popularizing the term “debit card”, most of my visa and Mastercards were hooked up to take money direct from my bank account, but they were still called credit cards.
I thought it was amusing that you said Apple was a "stupid American company with American values", even though you're actually complaining about a UK law. You do know this isn't a thing in the US, right? Just your country?
you might not be aware, but UK law doesn't actually require Apple to do it. It is targetted at social networks. Even ofcom posted praising Apple for doing it even if they didn't need to. And yes, that law is stupid, but allowing only credit cards as a way to verify an account is also stupid.
Apple has shown a warning on downloaded-from-the-internet apps since Mac OS X Tiger. That's the only reason it's being shown, there is no scary warning that users need to step-through in some basement in System Settings as they would for a non-notarized app. The popup even says "Apple has checked this application for malware". It is the smallest of friction present to get apps to run, as I'd argue that the sandboxing requirement for App Store apps and the need for a sign-in make the App Store a worse experience.
And I say this as someone more or less utterly in the same boat as you. I bought a used Thinkpad last June after seeing the first Tahoe beta. It's clear Apple is not the platform for us anymore.
I don't like the App Store experience and sandboxing either. I just find it almost malicious that they added that dialog even for notarised applications. Notarised applications should show no dialog whatsoever, just like App Store ones. It is these little frictions that move users to App Store apps. How many users saw that, had doubts, and then decided to go back to the "safe" walled garden.
TBH most of these seem like minor complaints. I've been using Apple since system 5 and I don't really see the issues you highlight as valid, they're annoyances to you but they're for other types of user.
>Gatekeeping
It's a one button dialog, hardly the end of the world, and for users like my 80-year-old mother (An Apple user since the Apple II) who rarely needs to stray outside the App store it improves her security. It's not for you, it's for users like her.
They're tightening security because security needs to be tighter. My bugbear is the implementation of privacy and security permissions because I have to walk people through it continually, it makes no sense, but it's hardly a big deal.
>Liquid glass
It makes a lot more visual sense after my upgrade to a 17 Pro from a 13 Pro, but it also ran faster on the 13 pro than the previous edition. I'm not a fan, but I haven't always been a fan of Apple interfaces since the 1980s, I wasn't into the skeuomorphic era, and people love to have a moan.
It took 5 minutes to turn the all the features off on both mac and phone, the only bugbear is the 3D border, and the contacts background (solved by turning on high contrast mode).
It was a big release, they know where the bugs are, and have already said the next release is about bugfixing and streamlining.
>But not everyone has a credit card.
68% of UK adults have one, and there is an option to scan and upload an ID. IRL law is catching up to the internet at last, and as the father of a daughter who got her first dick pic at 12 this is a good thing. It's not for you, it's for her.
You're not always the primary user these features target so you may not see the logic behind them.
The Online Safety Act does not require device manufacturers to enforce age "verification" at the OS level. If Apple had not implemented this, it would still be in compliance with UK law. Apple is displaying anticipatory obedience here, which is the opposite of good citizenship.
Two things stand out from this fiasco:
1. Apple, and those who praise them for what they just did, don't appear to have learnt from history. Anticipatory obedience used to be known as "vorauseilender Gehorsam" during a particularly dark period in the history of a country a few hundred miles southeast of the UK. It was one of the factors enabling the darkness.
2. The UK is a small enough market for Apple to treat it as a test bed. Which it probably is in this case, and which means that removal of anonymity aka "OS-level age verification" is coming to a lot more devices in a lot more countries soon. See also the uncanny coincidence of lots of OECD countries pushing for online age verification at the same time.
Before the iPhone, what was their attempts at that? I remember using OSX a bunch before the iPhone was public, but never remember any of the ways they tried to lock it down, I might have been too young then.
Getting music on an ipod was always a pain unless you bought the music on itunes or ripped a music CD directly with itunes (yes, that was an actual feature. hard to imagine these days).
No simple drag and drop onto a mounted USB drive like all other mp3 players back in the day. Maybe more of a lock-in attempt instead of lock down, but related imo.
> ripped a music CD directly with itunes (yes, that was an actual feature. hard to imagine these days).
These days? Last week (though WMP). My retired father's old computer died, his new one, no CD slot. Emails me from Australia asking how to rip his CDs for his media player. He's not an audiophile but he's not a technophile (and his blues music collection is sufficiently large that at least one of the blues radio stations in his city will on occasion ask him to borrow something because they don't have it in their library.
Told him to get a USB CD player and a card reader (his media player is on micro/SD).
You can still rip CDs with Apple Music. In fact, that's the only use I have for that app (I recently lost a hard drive with music and I'm in the process of backing up all my CDs again).
"locked down" is a vague, moving target. The criticisms of pre-OSX MacOS was that it was an operating system for little babies, and not serious tech enthusiasts and power users. Also they were too expensive, and you can build a PC that is 100000x more powerful for cheaper. This literally hasn't changed.
Are you being sarcastic? This has definitely changed with Apple Silicon.
Looking at hardware value, the M-series are way more competitive than the Intel macs ever were, and if you want to run an LLM locally, they are undefeated.
However, it is quite ironic that while the value of their hardware has sharply increased, their software has become the slop that everyone is complaining about.
Their previous lock-downs were on the hardware level, not offering ISA slots and stuff. The original Mac (then Mac+ and classic) had no expansion slots at all, and they started adding them only later.
ADB ports only finally went away when USB came out. But I do have to give Apple credit, because those fruity-colored iMacs with the hockey puck mouse, that had only USB ports... those are really what got USB to become fully adopted. PCs had USB ports for a while before those came out, but nobody made any peripherals, probably because Windows had really crappy support for it... Once those fruity iMacs were released, then came the flood of USB stuff.
First iPhone was 18 years ago, but yeah it around the time of the first iPhone. IIRC he actually mentioned that because he had already been confronted to Apple’s lockdown before the iPhone. It was a long time ago and I was young, so I don’t remember the details.
I'm in my fifties, have been involved in computing since I was a kid and I like Apple's stance on this because the threat landscape has changed, particularly for non-tech-savvy people. If you want that freedom there are various *nix flavours to choose from, you're not compelled to use Apple.
I assume they are talking about the "This application was downloaded from the internet" warning, which I also don't like. Requiring dollars for signing and then _still_ showing a warning when someone installs your application seems crappy to me.
Yes, I'm sure. Apple has taken a "walled garden" approach for a very long time now, and there are real, tangible benefits to this approach for end users. There are also real downsides, and if you wanted unfettered installation rights, Linux has existed for at least as long as Apple has limited software installation.
My point is that having both of these options is a good thing, as they both have pros and cons, so people can decide which of those pros and cons are most important to them, and then choose accordingly.
Some of us have watched it ratchet up since the 80’s, when there were no such restrictions. The fact that some people hit a threshold and decide to stop putting up with it isn’t surprising.
I hope the author reports back in a year. Getting off the Apple train appeals to me, the reality of doing so looks bleak.
Full disclosure: I've been in the Apple ecosystem since System 6, worked as an engineer there for 25 years. But I am as frustrated by many of the decisions Apple has made as many people I see posting.
Liquid glass? This too shall pass.
Locked down ecosystem? I imagine the blowback if they unlocked it and people's devices were suddenly being compromised by malware.
I guess I prefer the frying pan to the fire that I feel awaits me if I jump. As I mentioned though, seeing blog posts after the jump will be interesting.
As someone who has moved back and forth between Mac and Linux around 3 or 4 times since 1992, Linux is actually surprisingly reasonable. For laptops, I just buy from Dell, with Ubuntu preloaded, and everything works. (Dell's build quality isn't as good as Apple's, so I usually spend extra for Dell's next-day on-site service.) For workstations, it's usually pretty straightforward to get something that Just Works.
After that, I've got Chrome, Visual Studio Code, Steam and a full suite of command-line tools, which covers my personal essentials. But if you rely heavily on something like Photoshop or the MacOS X Omnifocus application, then you might find much larger holes on the Linux side.
As a matter of principal, I consider myself too old to troubleshoot Linux without getting paid for it. It turns out that I virtually never do that, so I'm pretty happy. Really, buying pre-loaded and fully supported Linux laptops eliminates 80% of the pain, and nearly all of the remaining 20% can be avoided by refusing to get clever.
I was in almost the exact same boat as the author. As a long-time Apple power user, I reached my breaking point about a year ago and finally migrated my workflow to Linux. I’m still letting my iPhone age out, but I’ve already stripped it of all Apple cloud services. Instead, I’ve replaced every stock app with self-hosted alternatives running on my own beefy NAS. If you have the technical overhead to manage your own stack, I highly recommend it, owning your data is a total game-changer for privacy.
Self-hosting UnifiedPush / ntfy drops FCM / Google Play Services as a requirement, extending the usable life of my phone pretty dramatically; the better battery life I get is just a bonus. Apps drop from RAM less-frequently.
The series I'm watching doesn't drop from Netflix. Nor do I juggle which services have seasons 1-3, and 5, and have to play the subscribe'n'cancel dance to watch the full series.
I never deal with radio-edits or censored curse words in music. When I pull up an album, it will be the proper album, not the smeared or changed swear words. This exact issue is what pushed me off Google Play Music.
It was probably a cascade of people but the question is whether we all realize Apple was right or if they just implemented it wrong or if it will just take a year or two to get things dialed in (but still prepared for an AR/VR world) and then we forget it ever happened.
People had the same reaction to iOS 7. They cleaned up some of the excesses over the next few years, and now the same basic concept is what people want Apple to RETURN to. They'll be fine.
I’d still want Apple to return to an iOS 6-like design. Not the super-skeuomorphic stuff, but the regular UI with discernible controls clearly separated from content.
It's a leadership failure. They obviously have a UI/UX dept. Those people want to be considered productive. Hence, they need to force a major redesign every now and then. Without a Steve Jobs like leader, those things will happen due to fundamental laws of corporate bureaucracy.
You remember the funny turn of phrase instead of how bad the reception was in your iPhone 4, and how it ruined the experience of owning it. Because it wasn't that big of a deal in the end.
I had the UK Age verification popup today. It verified immediately based on the age of my Apple account, I didn't have to take any further action. I am much younger than the OP, and probably than their Apple account. I am surprised that this didn't happen for them.
The OP states they've migrated. That might mean that the field on their account database entry might be related to that move. The account is older, but when moving countries I've had to do weird dances to get my Google accounts to accept the new locale, and wouldn't be surprised if their computed account age coincides with me having done that change.
Criticize gatekeeping all you want, but I feel it’s safer to recommend a Mac or iPhone to an older, non-technical person than the equivalent Windows / Android machine.
And I’m still able to install any app I want with minimal fuss.
> Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, praised Apple for the decision, especially since it’s not required to implement age verification for the iOS or its App Store under the region’s Online Safety Act.
I’m from the US but reside indefinitely in the UK, and I’ve dodged all this crap (age verification, disabling advanced protection) by simply remaining in the US App Store. It has some downsides like I can’t download the Vodafone UK app but nowadays most apps are available globally.
And herein lies the absurdity of the whole legal framework in the first place. Does it apply to tourists? Residents? Citizens? Citizens traveling abroad?
Yeah, agreed. Gatekeeper is nearly 15 years old now, and has progressively gotten more aggressive, but AFAIK there isn't much new in the past year or two. macOS 26 is bad, but so is Windows 11...so unless you are willing to jump into Linux for desktop, there aren't many other options. And age verification is likely going to be an issue with any platform he chooses - are other companies not using credit card?
All the reporting I’ve seen indicates that he left of his own accord and that Apple was blindsided, indicating that they didn’t even consider getting rid of him.
The author is complaining about the fact that there are a myriad of issues with Apple's ecosystem that have built up a level of frustration with their ecosystem where they can no longer tolerate it.
I find it infuriating I have to verify that I am older than 18 when my gmail account is 20+ years old.
Him moving to Android will do them no good as Google will be implementing similar controls in it. I suggest they get a Pixel Phone and install Graphene OS.
Why are you so deeply invested into defending the honor of a massive corporation that's callous to its users? Especially corporation that's supposedly proud of their UX?
> 3. Apple had a bug in their age verification protocol. Again, valid point, but Apple needs to follow UK law.
No they don't. They need to grow balls. They pay hefty tax rates in UK. If they would announce they are leaving UK market in 90 days, I bet you would find enough politicians to change the course of this terrible law.
Should Apple be responsible for righting the wrongs of legislation in every country it operates in? I don’t think so. Ideally it would mettle as little as possible, even though they clearly don’t (see right to repair).
Hmm. I don't think the point is that Apple has to "fight". The point is that Apple needs a moral high ground and is willing to completely give up the UK market (which I understand but don't necessarily agree with). I don't see that happening with today's environment, considering that shareholders will happily fire Cook over that.
I think this law is the wrong way about doing what they're trying to do, but I also don't want US corps deciding what is and isn't permissible in our country.
> I also don't want US corps deciding what is and isn't permissible in our country.
Apple might be the wrong company for you then. They're all about corporate control and deciding what is and isn't permissible on their devices. The first time you want to install an app that isn't approved in their app store, this becomes quite apparent.
They can do whatever they want on their devices that is permissible in whatever jurisdiction they're selling into, but they don't get to choose to follow our laws. If we want those changed we'll do it at the ballot box.
I'm not aware of any law or even terms of service that prevents Apple from saying "we don't like your politics, your iPhone has been disabled, account suspended, all iCloud data deleted." I don't think they would suffer any reputation damage either at this point.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few out there who have gotten their Apple account restricted for whatever reason, and didn't have the clout, energy, or mental bandwidth to pursue it loudly and publicly.
Apple paid 304m in taxes on 1200m in profits in the UK. That's ~25% tax rate on profits. It's entirely subjective to say if that's a "pretty hefty" rate or not, but it seems to be pretty standard for G20 countries.
I suspect the UK wouldn't love losing that 304m, but Apple would also probably not enjoy losing the 1200m of profits either.
It's almost like international companies having to deal with legislation in every country they operate in is a more complicated topic than could ever be hashed out in the comment sections of a tech news site...
There's a bizarre trend, especially on HN, of unjustified criticism against Apple. There are so many YC companies committing outright fraud, Palantir is building a surveillance state, a bunch of well known founders and VCs openly promote white supremacist ideology, but you'll never see more vitriol on this forum than someone complaining about the liquid glass UI or app store take rate.
Macbooks are standard fare for tech workers. Having reached the top of the mountain it should not be a surprise that there are heavy winds. Instead of behaving like custodians of the cathedral we get fast movement with breakage and an emphasis on pursuit of bold aesthetic novelty. If there is any bizarre trend here it is Apple burning billions to give people features they do not want while letting core functionality weaken and fail.
that's because those other things mentioned are quite irrelevant in every day life, but the apple products' quality or bad appstore practices are directly affecting the said complainer on HN.
Personally, I gave Apple many thousands of dollars, and then I had updates forced on me by Apple which made every Apple device I own worse.
One can be angry about things which directly and immediately make their life worse while also being angry about the other evils in the world.
This is surely not a trend, I am sure humans around the world throughout history have been able to criticize one thing even while something far worse is happening.
Internet memes and terminal Holy Wars take nearly zero thought, effort or intelligence to post about. Just emotion and hot takes, and you're almost guaranteed a response.
> they made an offhand comment contrasting its abilities with Git's, referencing Git's approach/design wrt how it "stores diffs" between revisions of a file. I was bowled over.
It seems like you have taken offense to the phrase "stores diffs", but I'm not sure why. I understand how commit snapshots and packfiles work, and the way delta compression works in packfiles might lead me to calling it "storing diffs" in a colloquial setting.
> It seems like you have taken offense to the phrase "stores diffs", but I'm not sure why.
Yeah, I'm not sure why it seems that way to you, either.
> the way delta compression works in packfiles might lead me to calling it "storing diffs" in a colloquial setting
We're not discussing some fragment of some historical artifact, one part of a larger manuscript that has been lost or destroyed, with us left at best trying to guess what they meant based on the little that we do have, which amounts to nothing more than the words that you're focusing on here.
Their remarks were situated within a context, and they went on to speak for another hour and a half about the topic. The fullness of that context—which was the basis of my decision to comment—involved that person's very real and very evident overriding familiarity with non-DVCS systems that predate Git and that familiarity being treated as a substitute for being knowledgeable about how Git itself works when discussing it in a conversation about the tradeoffs that different version control systems force you to make.
A common misconception is that git works with diffs as a primary representation of patches, and that's the implied reading of "stores diffs". Yes, git uses diffs as an optimisation for storage but the underlying model is always that of storing whole trees (DAGs of trees, even), so someone talking about it storing diffs is missing something fundamental. Even renames are rederived regularly and not stored as such.
However, context would matter and wasn't provided - without it, we're just guessing.
They seem to have mixed up horizontal and vertical, and if they did, then my reading is that they're saying the cost of the extra floor space (and the loss of the "shelf" space on top of the fridge) when using a chest fridge makes the economics unfavourable for people in dense urban areas, even with the energy savings.
At least, I'm hoping that's what they meant. If they really meant horizontal and vertical in the way they used it then I've got no idea either.
I didn't get it until reading your comment, but I think perhaps they meant 'vertical' as in 'it opens vertically' (chest freezer)—i.e. they didn't mix them up exactly, just used them differently than we expected.
Yeah, I understand your first sentence, but the last part of their comment was
"Plus, a horizontal fridge is just… convenient. You can’t even put things on top of a vertical fridge."
Don't they mean a horizontal fridge is a chest fridge? Which would make it sound like they want their whole comment to be in support of a chest fridge? Which is why none of it makes any sense to me.
That's what makes me think they've simply mixed up horizontal and vertical, because you can't (conveniently) store things on top of a chest fridge, but you can store things on top of a vertical fridge. Basically I think they've got a coherent point if you swap vertical and horizontal throughout their whole comment.
Yeah, the default Android volume control had (has?) the same problem. I remember when I got an early Pixel model that I thought there wasn't a low enough volume - this issue was filed in 2015 and is still marked as open: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/37035441
That is not true, even if the supply chain risk designation held. The sad thing is that so many people (myself included) also believed this, because this is what Hegseth said. He was lying. Thanks to another comment further down in this thread that led me to this page that explains what the supply chain risk designation actually does: https://www.justsecurity.org/132851/anthropic-supply-chain-r...
reply