It bothers me that we're comparing logical languages versus compositional, and I think it's based on a clear misunderstanding of what CSS is supposed to do versus something like C++.
It's like saying Rego[1] should just be done in a procedural language when in fact it also wouldn't be useful in that context.
My family have bought macs and been apple fanboys since the "Pizzabox" 6100 PowerPC. My dad handed me down a DuoDock when I was in middle school. We bought a G4 Cube, I had an iBook and Powerbook throughout college and throughout the 2010s.
In 2017 I built my first desktop PC from the ground up and got it running Windows/Linux. I just removed Windows after the 11 upgrade required TPM, and I bought a brand new Framework laptop which I love.
This is to say that Apple used to represent a sort of freedom to escape what used to be Microsoft's walled garden. Now it's just another dead-end closed ecosystem that I'm happy to leave behind.
> This is to say that Apple used to represent a sort of freedom to escape what used to be Microsoft's walled garden. Now it's just another dead-end closed ecosystem
So you haven’t had a Mac since 2017, but you believe all of us using Macs are stuck in some walled garden?
These comments are so weird. Gatekeeper can be turned off easily if that’s what you want. Most of us leave it on because it’s not actually a problem in practice. The homebrew change doesn’t even impact non-cask formulas.
It is said you only realise you are in jail once you feel the chains. And this is something Apple has tried to walk the line on, be locked down but in a fashion that causes the least push back on users.
Personally I never felt Mac OS was that locked down, but it has been over a decade since I last used it.
The only time I felt it was trying to delete 'Chess' only it to be listed as a vital system application. I know this isn't true but I would love it if Chess turned out to be a load bearing application for the entire OS. Like folks at Apple don't know why but if you remove it, everything stops.At least MS managed to remove the load bearing Space cadet pinball. Replaced it with a One drive popup that handles all memory management in the kernel ;)
Back to the original point, by comparison on iOS I definetly did feel the chains. One could fear Mac OS will turn into that but they haven't conditioned people yet.
I have to agree. Number of times it’s prevented me from running software I wanted to run: zero. Number of times it’s stopped me and said the equivalent of “are you really sure?”: a handful, maybe once a year on average.
And it’s not like I don’t use a gazillion third party apps and commands.
Same. I can see how it would look like a major problem if your only perspective was through clickbait headlines and angry comments from people who don’t use Macs anyway, though.
It reminds me of the distant cousin who lives out the countryside and prides themselves on not living in the city because the news tells them it’s a dangerous hellhole where everyone is getting mugged or shot on every street corner. When you immerse yourself in clickbait journalism the other side, whatever that may be, starts to look much worse than reality.
I wouldn't be surprised for certain kinds of secret sharing. Storage is cheap and sneaker-nets are easy. I'm sure someone is figuring out a network solution where 2 computers both have a 100tb hard drive with the same one-time pad.
> Speculation is less profitable than development, If you're getting speculation it's because the roi vs risk of development isn't justifiable.
Arguably, speculation should always be unprofitable and we should ideally regulate against it in every way, shape and form. I'd ask what purpose does holding onto a unproductive piece of land serve at all to society beyond an easy to grease financial vehicle?
There's tons of good speculation. Speculators are not buying and selling land, or corn futures, or what have you.
They're trading risk.
Sell to a speculator and you turn an uncertain future into cash right now.
Buy from a speculator and you get to enter the market at the moment of your choice.
It unlocks specialization - house builders can focus on building houses, and corn farmers can focus on growing corn. As soon as they're done with a house / harvest, either a consumer or a speculator buys it and they can focus on producing the next house/crop. Without speculators, they'd have to not only do their value-add, they'd also have to predict the market and hope enough customers show up in future. With speculators, this is significantly mitigated.
> As soon as they're done with a house / harvest, either a consumer or a speculator buys it and they can focus on producing the next house/crop. Without speculators, they'd have to not only do their value-add, they'd also have to predict the market and hope enough customers show up in future. With speculators, this is significantly mitigated.
Sounds like a great way to over or undershoot demand leading to market inefficiencies which the speculators have a perverse incentive to increase. It may be useful for a market like agriculture where production is variable and the produced goods are perishable - the loss from speculators may be less than the inefficiencies of noise. However, we've all seen how broken the real estate market has been despite the continued presence of land being one of the least variable things we encounter.
The real estate market got borked by the fact that municipal authorities answer to incumbent owners, who ~universally acted to limit new building. This breaks the mechanism by which some speculators go out of business.
If you can build anywhere, and a speculator is blocking development of a prime piece of land, you'll simply build elsewhere, making that land less prime with each passing moment, and eventually driving the speculator out of business.
Buy from a speculator and you get to enter the market at a price of their choice.
Vacant land is land that somebody could have built a home or a restaurant or a storefront or an apartment complex on, except it's being hoarded by speculators, who often refuse to sell at a loss.
In order to build a home / restaurant / storefront on that land, you first have to buy it. Buy it from whom? Ban speculators, and now you have to buy that land from the original owner, who is obligated to hold on to it even though he may want to use his capital for something else.
> refuse to sell at a loss
Speculators who won't sell at a cash loss are a real problem, but it's a problem that can easily solve itself. As the land value fluctuates up and down, the speculators' investment also goes up and down, whether he sells at that price or not. Carrying a piece of land on your books at a loss inflicts economic damage on the speculator.
In a free market, bad investors getting wiped out is just as important as useful ones getting rewarded.
Simply make the "default setting" to allow building things everywhere, and stupid speculators will go out of business more or less instantly. Useful ones will continue to quite literally make money for themselves and society.
> Buy it from whom? ... now you have to buy that land from the original owner, who is obligated to hold on to it even though he may want to use his capital for something else.
There's no obligation to "Own" land, if you want to put your capital elsewhere then either use your existing land as collateral for a loan or otherwise sell it. Technically everyone is actually leasing land from a government, it's not a commodity and it has a finite supply, so unlike corn or even housing, what is a speculator even speculating on?
I also want to be clear I think it would be very silly to ban speculators, the act of speculation is something that we all do when we own literally anything, but speculating on limited finite ground space that no one actually owns doesn't make any logical sense. Just properly tax speculation into a space that is unprofitable to hoard.
Ask yourself why and by what/who the incentives of living in society have been so thoroughly perverted that there is demand for "unproductive" (seriously, listen to yourself, this stuff is a liability) land for "finance bullshit magic" reasons? The perversions are what prevent "buy and do something to generate value" from outcompeting "buy and hold".
Even more tenement type layouts would be spectacular for increasing stock, but this is just half of the problem. It's all entirely dependent on reducing the level of greed landlords can get away with today.
NYC restricts building height to restrict population by land area. There isn't really a need for small apartments since population density is the limiting factor not space. You could build a not much more expensive apartment building instead of a dorm for the same population.
In that floor plan some units don't even have their own dedicated bathroom, let alone kitchens. By allowing this kind of housing to be built, you are actually increasing the level of greed landlords can get away with.
Is it inhumane or just inconvenient? I think we should have all sorts of housing including this sort, and people should be able to select their experience and cost (above a humane standard).
When I traveled through Japan a few years ago, my group stayed at everything from super expensive Onsens, to basic airport hotels, to capsule hotels in Tokyo. The flexibility to choose the kind of stay I wanted was fantastic and allowed us to stay within a budget while getting the full experience both inside and outside of metropolitan areas.
Your perspective disregards how little a post-grad college student should have to care about managing spaces they only sometimes use and would otherwise need to fully maintain themselves.
I can see the benefit to allowing more people to live in NYC, at cheaper prices, because it gives more people more options.
Can you explain what benefit could come from making NYC more expensive? Who benefits from that, and how? I could see landowners wanting that, but that's such a tiny fraction of the NYC populace that I doubt that's your motivation...
NYC doesn’t have any physical gates, but living in manhattan in particular, has a high financial gate, keeping out people who can’t afford it.
Generally people paying 5k+ rents aren’t committing violent crime, homeless sweeps actually happen here and it’s not really possible to sleep on the street.
If you live in an exclusive neighborhood, it’s pretty clean and safe.
there’s angst cheaper rent would change that
EDIT: In a lot of ways NYC’s wealthy and the upper middle class that mostly lives in manhattan have mutual interests the biggest being public safety
interesting interview if you’re interested in more
Can you explain what the benefit is of giving “people” more options (putting people in quotes because they could be current residents, it could be visitors, it could be hypothetical would-residents, it could be people in Alaska - I don’t know what you’re referring to).
Also while it may “give people more options” it inevitably would increase density in one of the most dense cities in the western world. Can you explain why that’s a good thing too?
People move to New York City because they want to live in a dense environment. Currently, options to live in NYC are severely undersupplied compared to the demand to live there. If there was more housing in NYC, a lot more people would choose to live there.
Giving people an option to choose a better life for themself is good in and of itself in my opinion.
Further, density is far better for the environment, greatly decreasing our impact on the environment, and making it easier for us to prevent climate change. It's also far better for the economy, for arts, for science... nearly all human endeavors benefit from the density of cities.
>Can you explain what benefit could come from making NYC more expensive?
People in cities have fewer children, and since children are the future tax base you might want that to occur so that you're not ground up into dogfood in your old age to pay down the national debt.
I do wonder how people think office buildings will comply with fire code which demands multiple avenues of escape from bedrooms during such a catastrophe.
I think that's confusing correlation and causation on childbirth there.
Other places in the world that do not require multiple exits for fires tend to have lower rates of fire death than we do in the US. The multiple exits thing is not actually for fire safety, it's to make multifamily housing harder to build and have less pleasant floor plans. Better fire suppression technology, having closer access to the stairs, are things that actually improve fire safety in practice.
Cowardly, weak, and pathetic are the only attributes you can use to describe this behavior. I'm not saying this in order to "get a rise" or "inflame" a discussion here, but how can anyone really justify this?
I'm enjoying this holier-than-thou attitude that seems to pervade a lot of comments, as though following the "rules" is all we need to do and is morally justifiable.
These "rules" weren't voted upon by either creators or consumers. Most of them are arbitrary and capricious. Features implemented by YouTube, like showing where people skip to the most, are also an attempt to cut into sponsorship dollars, was that within the "rules"?
Let me be clear: Following the "rules" under these monopolistic circumstances is the philosophy of cowardice in the face of power and doesn't hold as much intellectual merit as you might think.
Did the person I was replying to say any of that? You’re putting words in both their mouth and mine
I’m receptive to various arguments here that invoke power differentials, pragmatism, even deliberately breaking the terms of a service to help affect change, etc. I’m not necessarily someone who always follows the rules, and even though I do pay for YouTube I don’t view it as a real moral failing to use the free service with an ad blocker turned on
The comment I responded to didn’t have any of that, it just boiled down to “I can do it and they can’t stop me, so they can suck a dick”. Maybe not the end of the world when it’s directed towards Alphabet, but I hope that mindset doesn’t extend to everyone they interact with
I'm the person you were replying to, and I endorse spaceribs' comment.
My computer is my property, it will do what I ask it to just like my refrigerator, my tv, and my paper and pencil. I will remove corporate logos from my belongings, and entirely fail to look at the advertising that comes in my mail box. And if google tries to tell my computer to show me advertising, I am _entirely_ within my rights to tell my computer not to.
It's like saying Rego[1] should just be done in a procedural language when in fact it also wouldn't be useful in that context.
[1] https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/policy-language