The Prime Minister can only exercise control over the military by policy? They have no input to operations at all? Seems extraordinary. Wikipedia says that ministers exercise authority.
Yes, it's a bit of a stretch. The whole idea is that ministers do in fact make decisions so that somebody can be held democratically accountable for them. But sometimes we limit their decisions to appointments, i.e. choosing who to delegate power to. If that person messes up then we hold the minister accountable for putting their faith in the wrong person. The comment was pushing back on the idea that politicians are the ones doing the censoring. In that sense they are largely correct -- censorship is one of those powers you do not want to give directly to the politicians. And you can set it up so they don't get it. That's all.
> The money you pay for tuition really isn't going into a better education, it's maintaining the illusion that draws big names as both students and professors, and all the networking opportunities that then manifest as better outcomes for graduates.
Good professors, students, and networking makes a good education though, so yes it is really going to a better education.
Nah, that's just nepotism. What you learn (i.e. what is on the syllabus) is very much a secondary factor in terms of the actual value you get out of it, at least compared to a decent state school.
Some of the best professors I've had in terms of actually learning things were in tiny departments that had no networking capabilities worth speaking of in terms of post-graduation economic success.
> So the broader question would be: what makes governments apparently unable to get big IT projects done right?
Signals intelligence people must be building some of the most powerful computer systems in the world. They also historically have innovated and led the industry in areas like crypto. How come they get it right but the rest of the civil service can’t?
The rest of the civil service seems almost entirely unable to get anything done in computing though. Signals intelligence in the UK and US seem to ship quite a lot of success, from all the history, leaks, and things you can physically see like Bumblehive. Definitely something they’re doing differently than the rest of the civil service.
I don't get why people thinking driving a manual gearbox is such a mystery - it's not much different to automatic driving I've never met anyone who wasn't able to do it well enough.
There's really no magic to it - there's an extra pedal you depress when changing gear, and you bring up to re-engage the engine. Anyone can figure it out when presented with the pedal and the gear lever. People with no no education do it all around the world every day - I'm sure an American can figure it out.
I doubt that. Most people in the US getting into a car with a third pedal and a stick shift would just not have any idea what to do. The more enterprising would think, ok, I guess to I need to put it in first gear. So they try to move the shifter, and they can't move it. Assuming they don't break anything, maybe they figure out they need to press the clutch pedal. So they shift, and release the clutch pedal, and the car stalls.
Many people would just give up right there.
Those who don't, might get that they need to release the clutch slowly. So they try that, but maybe it still stalls (maybe they're on a slight incline, and the car won't move without giving it a little gas).
Let's say they do manage to get the car moving. I expect that further shifting will be incredibly rough, and there will be a lot more stalling. And that's basically the best scenario. I don't think most Americans would get anywhere near this far.
As an American who learned how to drive manual by accident in the Netherlands, but who already understood the basic mechanics of it, it was still very difficult. It took me over a half hour to get out of the parking lot, and then I stalled quite often in embarrassing ways over the next day or so (including on the highway during stop-and-go traffic, where I rolled back into the front of a box truck behind me). By the time I returned the rental car, I'd more or less figured it out, but I also had the benefit of my dad owning a manual car when I was young (though Mom made him get a car she could drive too by the time I was 8 years old or so). But someone who'd never even thought about a manual transmission before? Like, most Americans? Not a chance. (I did end up buying a manual car back at home, a few months later, when my existing car died. Drove it for 15 years until I finally had to get rid of it earlier this year.)
Remember, we're talking about a hypothetical car thief here who hops into a car, gets it started, and then notices it's not an automatic. We're not talking about someone who has actively decided to teach themselves how to drive manual, and rents or borrows a manual car for that purpose.
>I doubt that. Most people in the US getting into a car with a third pedal and a stick shift would just not have any idea what to do. The more enterprising would think, ok, I guess to I need to put it in first gear. So they try to move the shifter, and they can't move it. Assuming they don't break anything, maybe they figure out they need to press the clutch pedal. So they shift, and release the clutch pedal, and the car stalls.
In what scenario they'd go right into driving a manual car without prior instruction, looking up some instructions online, or someone knowledgable explaining it to them like 10-15 minutes?
Dunno, one is able to find automatic rentals all over the world - and if not that, one can certainly find ahead of pick-up time that the car is going to be manual...
Based on your comments, it seems you really can't emphasize with others that cannot drive a stick for some reason. It's not obvious, it requires a cordination and timing; unless you know what to do, you will stop your car, over/under-rev the engine, slide back on a steep road.
I taught many people how to drive and it was always a challenge with manual. Anyone cannot figure out without any verbal or written instructions.
People do drive a stick with education whether its formal drivers license course/exam, or some one is teaching them. An American usually does not need to learn a manual because almost no one uses a manual. But some other parts of the world, automatic transmission can be a considerable cost item. Even some countries started to have automatic only drivers licenses.
> no education do it all around the world every day
I taught myself to drive stick on a rental car. It was probably extremely obvious to other cars that I had no idea what I was doing. Grinding gears, over-revving the engine especially in reverse, and stalling at every full stop. That would catch any cop's eyes. But to your point, after 3-4 hours I got the hang of it and was no longer attracting attention.
But to parent's point: A thief who doesn't drive stick is almost certainly going to prefer stealing an automatic.
I had ridden in manuals as a passenger. I watched some youtubes and understood the general principle, but it was sink-or-swim learning. Pretty unsafe to be honest, but this was in a pretty remote area, and the car was a very forgiving Japanese micro-SUV.
I understand, I drive one, and I have taught nearly a dozen others.
If you put someone behind the wheel of a manual transmission vehicle and don't give them any pointers, they will turn the key and complain that the vehicle doesn't start... even if they understand the general idea of a manual transmission. Muscle memory is a powerful thing. (In the US clutch interlocks are universal)
It is highly unlikely that someone with no prior experience with a manual will successfully pull off a time sensitive and high pressure task like a car theft. They will steal another car instead.
In US. Our 2005 CR-V has a clutch-starter interlock. None of my other (older) five manual cars have/had them. It does not appear to be a federal motor vehicle standard requirement*. On some cars which are factory-equipped, there are instructions on how to defeat the system (typically for off-road/trail riding).
This is like comparing a microwave meal to one cooked from scratch on a stove. Yes, anyone can do it. No, experience with the automatic version does not meaningfully translate to the manual one.
You just turn the ignition. You may have to push the clutch in for some cars, just like you have to push the break in for some automatic cars. Manual cars aren't as different as you think they are.
If you put someone who has developed their muscle memory driving automatic transmission vehicles behind the wheel of a manual transmission car, they will press the brake and turn the key.
Successfully starting a manual transmission vehicle has two prerequisites:
* knowing that you have to press the clutch in
* identifying the clutch
People without this knowledge lack these prerequisites.
It's possible that the person you were replying to is making a joke playing on the general lack of familiarity with manual transmissions in the US, as opposed to making a statement of literal fact that manual transmission cars are hard to steal.
Sure, not a problem. Most programmers do, probably.
However, I've seen students use Stack Overflow and other resources as a source of "program stamps":
- They enter their problem in an Internet search engine.
- Click on the first result with code in it.
- "Stamp it" on their own code: I.e., copy/paste it.
- Using editor/compiler, find any issues by trial and error and fix them so the editor/compiler doesn't complain anymore.
They might try a simple example or two to see if it works. And that's it.
There's not much reflection on their final solution, or on the bits they copy/paste. They don't seem to understand their solution, nor care about that or their problem solving process. They put in effort, they expect a passing grade.
If like 50% of people use iPhones, which they do, how can it be possible to not know anyone young who uses one? Just doesn’t pass a common sense test to be true.
How does that change if the majority is small or large? Like 1% or 10% what difference do you think that makes?
> The only people I know that own iPhones IRL are older people who aren't tech savvy
Where do you live? Overwhelming majority of tech people I know in the US and UK use MacBooks and iPhones. That’s academia, systems programming, web services. Very very rarely see anyone using anything but macOS.
Probably a developing country. In the US iPhones have almost 100% market share among young people. I'm in Australia and almost everywhere I have worked has been a Mac place. Schools also all use Macbooks unless they can't afford them.
Most of the tech people I know have long since dropped Apple because of death by a thousand cuts. If you would have asked me even 5 years ago, I would have said half of them still belong to the cult of Mac, but not anymore; the only ones remaining are non-tech older folk.
A lot of HN's userbase lives in the silicon valley and the SF area, so maybe this is just a rather narrow focused regional thing? I only ever hear of cult members living in either the valley or SF, or alternatively, in Seattle, hardly anywhere else.
The proportion nationally is literally over 50%. They can't all be older people - that just doesn't factually add up, does it? You must be living in a very strange bubble, completely unrepresentative of the rest of the country.
The reality is most people with a phone use an iPhone. Any tech or academic conference I go to, most people are using MacBooks.
The people I know who used to only buy Macbooks have switched to Surfaces or those Dells and HPs that have milled aluminum bodies like Macs; and now, recently, I know several that recently bought Frameworks (and love them).
Are you sure you aren't just confusing all the milled aluminum laptops with Macs, and all the black glass slabs with iPhones? I've even had someone confuse my OnePlus as an iPhone (until I showed them that I didn't have that giant ugly notch that iPhones have; apparently running Android wasn't a big enough hint to them).
I don't know how they qualify those results; they don't publish anything resembling scientific work. Like, how do they counter-balance that Android users need to replace their phones less often? Apple users usually buy the new phone every gen, instead of every 3rd or 4th gen (Apple screens and batteries tend to die quickly); so, it seems active Apple users should be 1/3rd or 1/4th of active devices, not half.
Sales in of themselves don't mean much if you're comparing Apples to oranges (ahem) with a disposable phone vs one that isn't.
You are also saying on one hand that most iPhones are purchased by older non tech-savvy people while at the same time claiming that those same people buy a new phone every generation. That is hard to believe.
There are many regulations already in place to protect consumer rights. The idea that you can influence companies by not buying is an illusion. The only real solution to anti-competitive practices is legislation.
It used to be that when you bought a computer you could run any program you wanted. No one thought this needed to be enshrined in law until Apple thought to restrict what you can do with your own devices.
We do need legislation to ban devices which don't allow running general programs.
I consider it part of Apple's competitive advantage. I bought an iPhone because I want it to just work and for my apps to behave well. I can do the tinkering on my laptop, I don't want every computing device I own to be hackable.
Heck, if I could have a phone with iOS 1 (no third party apps) and the camera and screen of the latest iPhone, I would buy that.
And people who want a hackable iPhone can jailbreak it or whip out the microscopic soldering iron. I basically don't install 3rd party apps but I want it enforced at the OS level. If even 5% of iPhone users were unable to install apps companies would think twice about ruining their website in order to force their mobile app on users.
If you’re willing to ban the NFA/legalize probate nuclear weapons we might be able to talk.
In the mean time I suspect you support at least some level of collective restriction, and that means banning companies from selling locked hardware is fair game.
Because it's anti-competitive. Society is advanced when companies have to compete and not just collect taxes from other companies who are trying to do something.
The Apple tax is not advancing anything. It's just a stranglehold on innovation promoted with FUD about how running programs is insecure despite the fact that this isn't applied to desktop/laptop computers.
Apple developing a more secure platform is an innovation and advancement. If the iPhone isn’t the right choice for you buy one of the other thousand phones on the market, and leave other people alone.
> I suspect you support at least some level of collective restriction
Locked mobile phones don’t hurt people other than the people who choose to use them. That’s different to for example a gun.
The only reason to ban iPhones is because you know other people like them as they are and you’re in a minority! You want to enforce a minority opinion on others. That’s morally wrong.
If you seriously think is a majority opinion you need to get out more. The average person wants strong device security, look at the press and angst attracted by cybercrime in recent times.
The discussion is about control. No one is saying devices should be less secure.
If you ask people "should you be able to run any program you want on your devices?" I doubt people would answer "yes, on computers, but on phones I should only be able to run what Tim Apple allows me to".
The Prime Minister can only exercise control over the military by policy? They have no input to operations at all? Seems extraordinary. Wikipedia says that ministers exercise authority.