They never claimed their privacy was being invaded. They simply asked (allegedly? I haven't seen any actual request from them but lets just assume there is one) not to be linked to from HN.
They aren't manipulating anyone... they're just making it known they'd prefer not to be linked to from another platform.
Is this a reasonable expectation? I'm not sure -- my gut says probably not. Is it a reasonable request? IMO yes.
Contrived scenario for expository purposes: lets say I'm an expert in pre-civil war era southern cuisine. If I find out that people on stormfront are linking to and discussing my posts for their own agenda, do I have a right to make them stop? Of course not. Is it reasonable for me to say "I'd prefer if your platform didn't link to my blog"? Of course it is.
This goes against the purpose of the internet. It is not a reasonable request at all. He doesn’t pay for the bandwidth, he posted thoughts on a public forum, and people felt they were notable enough to be shared to another public audience. Reap what you sow.
In my opinion, it's a totally reasonable request. It's not a reasonable expectation, but that is a different matter. I'm not sure what the 'purpose of the internet is' but I don't think Al Gore had such a request in mind when he invented the internet.
It is a reasonable request to ask your neighbor to take down their billboard that says "THE GUY NEXT DOOR WROTE ${THIS} BLOG POST AND IS A REAL PIECE OF SHIT", even though they aren't obligated to do so. It becomes unreasonable when you expect that they take it down.
FWIW, calling somebody a piece of shit goes against personal insult laws in many countries, so in your particular example, the neighbor may in fact be obligated to take down the billboard, or at least to modify it.
FWIW there are few expressions of free speech that aren't in violation of some arbitrary law enforced by some arbitrary country. It was probably short-sighted of me to assume that my exaggerated example wouldn't be recognized as hyperbole, but honestly what is the point of this comment?
Everything depends on jurisdiction, that's the very nature of law in and of itself.
>All of that together makes me think the bubble colours are primarily there to gently nudge people into getting their friends and family to buy iPhones.
I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that the color-coded messages aren't at least partially motivated by creating an in-crowd and out-crowd dichotomy, but its a stretch to say that they are there _primarily_ to get Apple users to bully their friends into switching platforms. Like many others have pointed out, there are a variety of reasons why one would want an obvious distinction between SMS and iMessage messages.
the obvious reasons:
- knowing when your communication is encrypted
- knowing when your going to incur outrageous fees from your service provider (cheap text messaging is not ubiquitous across the modern world)
- knowing who you can communicate with without a cell signal (eg during flights, in remote areas, etc)
but also it serves a useful purpose for less advanced/savvy users to reduce confusion on feature discrepancies. There are a lot of niceties/features in iMessage that modern users might not realize aren't common to SMS messages. The average iMessage user might not be aware that they can't just send a huge video file over SMS, or a PDF, or send messages with the 'effects' Apple offers, or have named group chats that people have the option of joining or leaving, etc.
The 'cool kid' dynamic that the color coding creates is definitely not an accident, but there are obvious benefits to it that aren't nefarious in nature.
Adding on, I think in the context of the recent internal emails uncovered during the Epic lawsuit, it's agreeable that there's an ongoing story about Apple's ulterior motives to damage the competition by artificially limiting their outreach to customers on other platforms.
But IMO the solution there wouldn't be to remove the red/blue distinction, which as noted in this thread serves as important security and feature indicator — the solution would be to compel Apple to serve their customers better by not having them caught in the crossfire in their marketplace battles with Android.
I also noted that it would be more accurate for Apple to display a padlock to display the security status of a chat, but that would actually be even more derogatory. It's basically saying "this chat is unsafe."
I really hope Apple at least announces iMessages for the web, and a native client for Android. A lot of households are multi-ecosystem.
As a musician with tons of peripherals, some of which are annoyingly sensitive and can't be used through hubs or anything but straight-through adapters (my turntable mixer's digital interface, for example), I welcome the return of the ports. Its not uncommon to have an audio interface, one or more midi controllers, the aforementioned mixer all connected for instance. And basically all of those things still use USB-B ports for whatever reason, and I never see USB-B to C cables ever.
The last time I searched amazon for usb-b to usb-c cables I genuinely couldn't find any. I bet I would have better luck searching for 'usb-c printer cable' as someone else pointed out, but I didn't think of that.
Last time I needed a cable on short notice before a gig I had to settle for an adapter, and was really lucky that it worked. I've had other seemingly simple pin-to-pin adapters not work on me before.
Next time I'm in a jam I'll run down to my local ebay though, thank you for this super helpful reply.
Just bought an USB-C to USB-B cable for my Macbook Air m1 and an iConnectivity midi interface and it didn't work.
(Brand was Equip). Another cable from Delock to mini USB-A was fine though. Some of these cables seem to be only for charging so do some research.
Best bet seems to be Apple adapter even tough I had them break every year or so.
You'd rather install the website as a native app so that it has even more device access and then allow it to send notifications to your phone?
Is that really a cleaner, less intrusive UX for you then it would be to have an easily ignorable button next to a website's address bar that would allow you to turn notifications on or off for each website with maybe three or four clicks at max?
Sure, but I can also choose not to use a website or service. If a set of features is only available in a specific medium (whether that's a website or an app) your choice is the same -- you either use it in that medium or you don't.
> the browser should be a sandbox.
This is an interesting point, because I do get where you're coming from, but I almost draw the opposite conclusion from the same data. The browser is a sandbox, so I want to put things in it. I refuse to install a native app to check my bank balance or post on social media, I don't trust those companies with that level of access to my phone.
The browser is a better sandbox than my native device, and notifications don't really break the browser sandbox in any significant way. So if (as heavyset_go suggests) notifications are the difference between having an app built in the sandbox or out of it, then I want notifications, because I want the app to be built in the sandbox.
If having notifications could make it feasible to use Twitter without installing an app, then great, we should do that. Or if notifications are enough that I don't need to have an email app or Matrix client installed... it's a pretty substantial win for security if I can get rid of those apps on my phone and use them as mobile progressive websites instead. Having email notifications on my phone is mandatory for me, I can't drop that feature. But is that alone a good reason to install a completely separate application that's requesting filesystem access or contact access?
If you block a website sending you Chrome notifications it blocks notifications for all your Chrome installations, including your phone.
If you turn notifications off for Chrome everywhere you won't see Chrome web notifications anywhere.
If you're talking about some other way websites can send notifications to your phone then I don't think that has anything to do with Chrome. And I can't think of what mechanism you're talking about.
My point is that the person said "I don't want websites to be able to send notifications to my phone", and then you responded by explaining how one can prevent such notifications via configuration.
That is true, but not really relevant to what he said. He didn't say "I wish there was a way to configure my browser to not send notifications to my phone".
You then followed up with a snarky line telling them the thing that bothers them doesn't actually bother them, and that wasn't great either.
If I said "I don't want bears to be able to maul me in my sleep," and someone said "here's an option you can check which prevents that from ever happening," please explain to me how that failed to solve my problem.
OP didn't say "I want to prevent chrome from sending notifications". If he did, then sure, having an option toggle would solve his problem. But that's not what he said.
He said he doesn't want chrome to be able to push notifications to his phone. Having an option to disable that feature means it is has to be possible in the first place.
Maybe I am being overly pedantic, but to me the distinction matters.
Then it should be said "I don't want Chrome pushing notifications on anyone's phone, ever".
If you want it for yourself, you can make it happen. If you change a setting that disables ALL notifications for Chrome in your Android phone, your condition is satisfied. Chrome is not able to send notifications, unless the developers find a workaround :)
I want selected websites to be pushing notifications to me through Firefox. For example ebay-kleinanzeigen. Why should I install an app for that purpose?
I hope I'm not coming off as contentious, and I know I'm sort of beating a dead horse here, but I really feel like this distinction matters, so bear with me:
>Chrome is not able to send notifications, unless the developers find a workaround :)
Yes, it is able to send notifications. It won't (or shouldn't, at least) but it is still capable of sending notifications.
If I put my manual transmission car in first gear, it's never going to shift to second, but it still able shift to second.
Lets say I told you your showerhead has the capability to live stream your showers on youtube, but that feature has been toggled off. I'm sure you would understand if some people didn't want that to be possible in the first place, whether or not you agree with them.
> Why should I install an app for that purpose?
I'm not saying you should! I'm not arguing the merits of the original opinion, I'm simply saying there is a difference between whether an application can do something, and whether it will do something.
It absolutely should. Making the default "never prompt" would lead to websites prompting users to modify their preferences and change security settings. We do not want to normalize that behaviour. It would be a security nightmare. The defaults might be a little annoying for users (who can switch it to never prompt if they want to) but keeping average users who do want email or chat notifications safe online should take priority.
I don’t think average users want email or chat notifications.
And I don’t think web sites would prompt this as they don’t on Safari and that works out ok.
I think Chrome defaults stuff that Google thinks makes advertisers more money and Google more money. Safari defaults stuff that Apple thinks users want.
Jokes aside, prosecutors pushing through cases they know to be unsound isn't exactly uncommon. Many prosecutors are more concerned with their conviction rates than they are in justice, because that's what they are measured and rewarded by.
"Right" and "wrong" are dependent upon the system and how it rewards you.I would agree that most prosecutors what to serve justice for malfeasance that has been committed. That's different than whether a case is the "right" or "wrong" one to take.
If a case seems unclear, and you could spend years working on a conviction that will ultimately fall through, that hurts your ability to do justice for more readily winnable cases. You have to spend the time building a case, do all the paperwork, go to trial, etc. That's opportunity cost. So spending that on a case you have 10% chance of winning just isn't a good use of time. Add that to the fact that conviction rate is a metric used to quantify skill, you're rewarded for serving justice successfully. And that then dictates how much money you can get which can help fund enforcing justice.
I believe you're looking at the moral right/wrong, and I don't believe that is the same right/wrong being discussed in terms of how lawyers often choose cases. At the end of the day, lawyers need work and they get that mostly through word of mouth and reputation. You don't really get either of those when you lose cases.
You're version of the right thing and the prosecutors version might not align.
The right thing for them is to put as many criminals behind bars. They review cases and pick ones they can win. They will attack and find unrelated weak points in your character to win. They believe they are doing the right thing and will use whatever they can legally against you. You being innocent and going to court is means someone made a mistake. To confess to a mistake loses you credibility, to confess to an ongoing process mistake could open up other cases where dangerous people could be set free.
It is trial if wrong to convince one's self that accused are probably guilty and that actions that convict them are moral even the proof is insufficient or weak or the procedure flawed.
Most people want to do the right thing wherein right thing is almost entirely defined by norms and customs of their environment. If the norms and expectations are high ethical and correct standards people will follow them to the degree they are able.
To what degree are such standards broken or defective in America though?
Lest we forget the head lawyer of Texas a state home to aprox 27 million people or around 8% of the nation is a man whose own prosecution has for years only been stymied by the difficulty of prosecuting the man at the head of the states justice department. Either 8 or 9 (I've lost track) directly beneath him have resigned and accused him of corruption.
This isn't even an isolated instance corruption is found in fact all over the united states.
Even when in theory we would like to do the right thing we have a hard time establishing what standards are even real. Look at the fact. For proof of that look no further than the science of hair analysis which the FBI spent decades using to convict the accused before we realized that they were incapable of differentiating dog hair from human hair.
Think of entire people going in to work producing work product about imaginary science they were pretending to do competently and sending people to death row in part because of their fake work product.
The justice system in America is a bad joke that is primarily differentiated from say Cuba in that bribes are paid to your lawyer instead of directly to government officials.
Prosecutors are shaped by an environment that equates “the right thing” to “punishing the guilty.” It’s like any profession... a surgeon will think you need surgery and a prosecutor will think the guy in handcuffs needs to go to jail.
I get where you're coming from, but sheesh you could hardly have made a more tone deaf analogy.
Aside from the fact that their private restaurant is almost certainly not closed, some billionaires being inconvenienced by what amounts to minor condo fees on their second (or third, or fourth) home is wildly different than a person with no home struggling to keep themselves warm at night. And 'wildly different' is an understatement.
>The microflora then takes the place of the cow in creating a protein that can be used to make vegan versions of dairy-based food such as milk, cheese, and ice cream.
Not sure how much the protein matters, seems to me that a good replacement for butterfat would be a much bigger breakthrough. Butterfat is crucial to the texture and flavor of ice cream.
Yes, my first thought was what are they using for the fat? Whey protein doesn’t seem that useful for cheese, since that’s the part of the milk most cheeses don’t use.
They aren't manipulating anyone... they're just making it known they'd prefer not to be linked to from another platform.
Is this a reasonable expectation? I'm not sure -- my gut says probably not. Is it a reasonable request? IMO yes.
Contrived scenario for expository purposes: lets say I'm an expert in pre-civil war era southern cuisine. If I find out that people on stormfront are linking to and discussing my posts for their own agenda, do I have a right to make them stop? Of course not. Is it reasonable for me to say "I'd prefer if your platform didn't link to my blog"? Of course it is.