Has private equity ever done anything good for anyone outside of the investors?
If you're a Dell customer, Michael Dell taking the company private again seems to have done wonders for them.
Readit Newstpmoney commented on Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/bookofjoe
tpmoney commented on Alan Dye Was in Tim Cook's Blind Spot daringfireball.net/2025/1... · Posted by u/andsoitis
It feels like the question that gets raised by this is why was there such a blind spot here? Apple's UI/UX decisions aren't for everyone to be sure, but they were a core differentiator for Apple. So if so many people inside saw Dye as a problem, and given the ever increasing dissatisfaction with the UX from customers, why was there a blink spot? Was it too much focus on the hardware side? Was it a change in overall care for UX beyond just Dye? Is it a company stretched too thin between all the various projects?
tpmoney commented on Last Week on My Mac: Losing confidence eclecticlight.co/2025/11/... · Posted by u/frizlab
> Not sure what permission you're referring to or what your curl script is trying to do but `/opt/homebrew/opt/curl/bin/curl http://www.google.com` works just fine on Tahoe from both iTerm2 and ghostty.
Mwwahahaha. Yep. Curling something neutral like google.com worked fine for me as well. That's how I was verifying that everything was OK.
Now try to do "curl https://192.168.0.1" (or whatever is your local router's IP). It will trigger this request: https://imgur.com/a/tMAApfB
The permission in question is called "Local Network", you can find it in the "Security" section in the control panel. Yeah, their names don't match.
Oh, and negative entries are NOT listed in that panel. So if you deny the request, there is NO indication of that. Anywhere. Logs will also be empty.
> This is IMO the correct behavior. If something asks for permission and it's not explicitly granted, then the default should always be denied.
The keyword is SILENTLY. The permission requests should be logged and made available in a central location, where they can be reviewed.
It's literal recursive WTF. When you start looking at it, it gets worse and worse.
So I thought that might be the dialog you're talking about which is why I thought it was weird that ghostty didn't have it and curl seemed to work just fine. I also could swear that it did show you rejected apps in the list just with the permission turned off.
After experimenting a bit, it seems like:
1) You're right that it doesn't show the rejected apps in the list. Seems like the only way to find that is to query the tcc sqlite db.
2) The permission does apply equally to the built in `curl` as it does to the homebrew installed curl.
3) What it doesn't apply to apparently is the gateway address on your network, regardless of which app you use.
4) It also doesn't apply to all "private" IP space addresses, just ones that are on your subnet. So for example, I have an IOT subnet on my network on its own VPN with a route in the gateway for accessing it from some specific devices on the primary LAN. Without the permission, I can ping and curl (with both the built in and homebrew versions) all of the devices on the IOT subnet. But I can't ping or curl (again with either version) any of the devices on the LAN subnet. Turn the permission on and I can hit everything on the local subnet fine from all the devices.
5) I also validate that the above rules are true even for an application (alacritty in this case) that had never been given permission (in case setting and then removing the permission did something odd)
> The keyword is SILENTLY. The permission requests should be logged and made available in a central location, where they can be reviewed.
This I agree on, the rejected apps should show in the privacy permissions, even if in a collapsed tab/pane so that you can review later. I could swear it used to do this, but maybe I'm thinking of iOS which does do that.
tpmoney commented on Last Week on My Mac: Losing confidence eclecticlight.co/2025/11/... · Posted by u/frizlab
I couple of months ago, I wasted about 4 hours debugging issues with my app. Command-line scripts didn't work properly for some reason, while my IDE worked fine.
Turned out that I either missed or accidentally denied the permission to access local networks for iTerm. So the `curl` utility installed from Homebrew was silently failing, while the system-provided `/usr/bin/curl` worked fine. Because it has special permission from Apple.
Can I just give the same permission to iTerm? Nope. We are not worthy of that power, and must re-affirm permissions every 30 days for all non-Apple software.
Oh, and these permission popups happen at random moments, including during presentations or meetings. And if you don't accept them, they are silently denied.
> Can I just give the same permission to iTerm? Nope. We are not worthy of that power, and must re-affirm permissions every 30 days for all non-Apple software.
Not sure what permission you're referring to or what your curl script is trying to do but `/opt/homebrew/opt/curl/bin/curl http://www.google.com` works just fine on Tahoe from both iTerm2 and ghostty. Looking through the various permission grants, the only one they both have in common is "App Management". They share some file permission grants, but where as iTerm has full disk access, ghostty only has Downloads and removable media. In the past I've found I've needed to add terminals like iTerm to the Developer Tools permission, but ghostty isn't in there currently and curl is still working just fine. And in none of these cases have I ever needed to re-affirm the permission every 30 days.
Any chance you have "disclaim ownership of children" setting enabled in iTerm? Maybe if iTerm is not allowing child processes to use its own permissions, you're having to re-authorize curl specifically (and it's getting updated about once every 30 days?)
> And if you don't accept them, they are silently denied.
This is IMO the correct behavior. If something asks for permission and it's not explicitly granted, then the default should always be denied.
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
tpmoney commented on Confessions of a Software Developer: No More Self-Censorship kerrick.blog/articles/202... · Posted by u/Kerrick
> Remote work eliminates a lot of problems with office work: commutes, inefficient use of real estate, and land value distortion. But software development is better when you breathe the same air as the folks you work with. Even with a camera-on policy, video calls are a low-bandwidth medium. You lose ambient awareness of coworkers’ problems, and asking for help is a bigger burden. Pair programming is less fruitful. Attempts to represent ideas spatially get mutilated by online whiteboard and sticky note software. Even conflict gets worse: it’s easy to form an enemy image of somebody at the end of video call, but difficult to keep that image when you share a room with them and sense their pain.
Every ounce of data proves this statement wrong. If you feel like you work better non-remote then do it. Don’t shill it as a panacea. I’ve been remote for 11 years now and if I wasn’t I wouldn’t have been able to take care of my family, go back to school part time, work on my health with better meals and reasonable gym hours, etc. even IF in office was better for the employer (even though all data says it’s not in terms of productivity) it is unequivocally better for the employees life to work remote as much as humanly possible.
This hot take is just simply insane. Humanity had no problem coordinating massive projects over IRC and mailing lists. It’s clear the author is a “nu-coder”.
> Humanity had no problem coordinating massive projects over IRC and mailing lists.
Humanity has plenty of problems coordinating over IRC and mailing lists. That we have succeeded some of the time does not imply we would succeed all the time or that there aren't significant downsides. These discussions often bring up Linux as an example and sure, the remote development of the Linux kernel is indeed a testament to what you can accomplish with remote teams and strong coordination. On the other hand, we could note that despite how successful that remote coordination has been, the (arguably) most successful Linux OS business (Red Hat) decided they needed offices and in person work long before they were owned by IBM. Likewise the SuSE Linux folks have offices around the world. There must be some benefit they're getting from that to have decided to take what was a fully remotely coordinated project and centralize some of it.
> even IF in office was better for the employer (even though all data says it’s not in terms of productivity) it is unequivocally better for the employees life to work remote as much as humanly possible.
That might be true for some people, but it is not true for all. If you'd asked me before COVID if I wanted a 100% remote job, I would have told you yes. I'd even applied for a number of (the far more limited at the time) remote jobs like Gitlab. And then COVID hit and I spent 2-3 years working from the single spare 10x10 space in my home. In that time I lost precious living and hobby space to having a dedicated working location (approximately 20% of my home). I increased my personal utility costs without compensation. My mental state deteriorated due to a lack of mental and physical separation from work and home. I found it far more difficult to accomplish my work due to a number of at home distractions. I struggled heavily to keep up with things happening across my team as it was difficult to both keep up with the async chat discussions without also burning massive amounts of time and energy context switching. I found that I personally need some form of a "commute" in order to switch my mental state from home to work and back again. I had to allow corporate devices filled with corporate spyware on my personal network. I had to isolate parts of my house from my spouse at various times. I had to allow strangers and colleagues a video view into my personal and private home. Working 100% remote was unequivocally worse for me as an employee.
By contrast, now that I'm back in the office most days, I have an employer provided dedicated working space. I have free coffee, tea and fruit. I have a space where I can be focused on working on something and still keep an ear on other things happening within my team, allowing me to context switch when my attention is needed without needing to switch just to find out if my attention is needed. I have a free gym on site that allows me to exercise with equipment that I don't have at home and wouldn't have the space for even if I could afford it. I don't have to allow corporate devices on my home network anymore. I have a cafeteria which serves reasonable and healthy food at reasonable prices when I don't feel like making my own lunches. I have access to high quality and private video conferencing systems when I need to coordinate with other remote individuals and I no longer have to allow strangers visibility into my home in order to conduct interviews. I get to eat meals with co-workers and colleagues and have social engagement during my breaks. I can get away from home distractions and more easily focus on the work I have at hand. I have a reasonable commute that's just long enough to allow me a mental switch without being oppressively long, and takes me past a number of locations that I would have needed to go to any way each week.
Which isn't to say it was 100% bad. To this day I have a hybrid situation which affords me benefits that I would not have with a 100% in office position, and for which I am eternally grateful and fortunate. I also recognize that I work for a very good company that provides a number of perks that aren't available to everyone who works in an office. But that's the point. In office work doesn't mean just one thing, and neither does remote work. Both are highly subjective experiences and to say that remote work is "unequivocally" better for everyone is just wrong.
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
tpmoney commented on Confessions of a Software Developer: No More Self-Censorship kerrick.blog/articles/202... · Posted by u/Kerrick
> Remote Work Sucks
> Remote work eliminates a lot of problems with office work: commutes, inefficient use of real estate, and land value distortion. But software development is better when you breathe the same air as the folks you work with. Even with a camera-on policy, video calls are a low-bandwidth medium. You lose ambient awareness of coworkers’ problems, and asking for help is a bigger burden. Pair programming is less fruitful. Attempts to represent ideas spatially get mutilated by online whiteboard and sticky note software. Even conflict gets worse: it’s easy to form an enemy image of somebody at the end of video call, but difficult to keep that image when you share a room with them and sense their pain.
Buddy, that's either a you problem or a problem of the software culture around you.
I've thoroughly enjoyed remote work. I thoroughly hate being in the office.
In the office, I can't type out notes nearly as quickly. I can't read people's inquiries two or three times to understand what they were asking in the first place.
Why should I form an "enemy image" at the end of a video call? I don't. But in a conference room? That is easy. I can see their faces, see when they're lying or hiding something, and it only ever builds drama.
Attemps to represent ideas spatially doesn't get mutilated by online whiteboard and sticky note software. Unless you don't know how to use online whiteboard and sticky note software. You need integration, you need training to use the integration, and you need to keep focus on the topic. You need to identify the ancillary information and objects. You can do all of that online while someone else is leading or speaking. Everyone can. It's a hell of a lot harder to do that when everyone is sitting in a conference room staring at the speaker instead of typing in their computer screens.
Asking for help is only a bigger burden if your culture allows information silos. Encourage your team to speak up into a common chat room. Let anyone answer the question instead of just whoever was asked. It's easier to develop empathy and watch someone grow when everyone is given the shared burden of answering questions. It's easier to identify what processes are causing the biggest problems when everyone can see the amount of questions or frustration about it. It's harder when that information silo is real.
Remote work is way better than in-office work. If you disagree then you are a very different person than I am, and/or have very different experience than I have.
> Remote work is way better than in-office work.
Remote work is different than in-office. And it's better for some people and worse for others. For example, while I personally find it useful to be able to type out an example when talking to someone about things, I also find that in order to get things done effectively at home, I have to ignore the notifications (or will ignore even if they're not explicitly ignored) when I'm "in the zone" as it were. The problem with this is that someone might have asked a question that I have the answer to, or even asked me a question directly, or someone else on my team may have been going down a rabbit hole that I could have stopped them from going down. But because using a chat system inherently requires context switching and your full attention, the only way to be in the loop is to be continually breaking out of where you are to go look at chat.
By comparison, in the office with my team around me, I can keep one ear open to the conversation that's happening in the air around me. My screen, my literally single focus within the computer and my fingers can all be occupied working on something, and I can use my additional sense of hearing to keep up with other things going on. When someone needs me specifically, they can (with varying degrees of forcefulness) grab my attention, where as online they have one and only one way, and it has the same priority as any other notification both in my conscious and unconscious mind unless I specifically read the notification (and again, context switch).
Video calls still to this day suffer from latency issues. We all, continually have the "What about - sorry - what if - sorry you go - do you want me to go?" conversation in video calls. That's objectively a worse experience than just having everyone in the same room. Even when people in the room start talking over each other, that can be resolved much faster in person than on the video call.
It's also really easy to get into the habit of not paying attention in conference calls/video calls. Because of the scheduling issues, remote work tends to include a lot more "just in case" invitations to meetings and discussions. Sometimes you really do need to be there, other times you don't. So you often get courtesy invites, and you might go, and while you're listening you might do that "identifying the ancillary information", or just keep trucking on whatever you were doing before the call started because you can just listen in. And slowly over time you and everyone else starts to build up the habit of not paying attention at all. It takes conscious effort and specific behaviors to not let yourself get distracted by the big distraction box sitting in front of you while you're having your meetings. There's a reason we generally consider it rude to be on your phone or computer in an in person meeting without specific need.
Perhaps more telling though is the fact that even remote work people acknowledge the importance of having dedicated working space. Even if you don't have other people in the space with you, almost everyone can agree that having dedicated space for working is important. But remote work puts the burden of paying for and subsidizing that space on each individual employee. For some of us, that's not a significant burden and for others, it's quite significant.
I'd also ask if 100% remote work was objectively better for all people and all things, I'd ask why co-working spaces exist? Why do remote workers congregate in coffee shops? Why, even though the internet and online communities are "remote first" groups, do we still have conferences, meet-ups and conventions? Why do we bother with these expensive and difficult to coordinate in person gatherings if everything we would do with them we could do better remotely?
In the end, remote work isn't one thing, it's many different things for each individual person and how you experience it is highly subject to your personal circumstances and your work environment as a whole. It should be entirely unsurprising that people are different and experience remote work differently and that as a result, plenty of people will genuinely prefer working in office to working remotely.
tpmoney commented on Confessions of a Software Developer: No More Self-Censorship kerrick.blog/articles/202... · Posted by u/Kerrick
Obviously, because it was a fictional, simplified example for the post. My real use case was more complicated and involved multiple developers working on different parts of that flow.
The problem with if-else chains is it's easy for a programmer to forget to handle a case that another developer added in the called component. Unit tests can't help a spec miscommunication. But, visitor pattern can as it forces the handling logic to be complete.
Hence my example at the end using discriminated unions and exhaustive pattern matching in F#. Much, much simpler with the same benefits.
As a "half way" point, modern (21+) java brings pattern matching switch statements to the language, but you'd probably construct the F# version in Java using a sealed "marker" interface. Something like
sealed interface Result permits ValidationError, SearchQuery, UserProfile {}
Result res = db.query(input);
return switch(res) {
case ValidationError ve -> context.renderError(ve);
case SearchQuery sq -> context.redirect("Search", Map.of("q", sq));
case UserProfile up -> context.redirect("Profile", Map.of("user", up));
};
Before that pattern matching, I might have used a Function<Context, R> instead in the Result interface. This is off the top of my head without the benefit of an IDE telling me if I've done a stupid with the generics and type erasure but something like:
interface Result<R> {
public R handleWithContext(Context c);
}
class ValidationError<RenderedError> {
public RenderedError handleWithContext(Context c) {
return c.renderError(this);
}
}
class SearchQuery<Redirect> {
public Redirect handleWithContext(Context c) {
return c.redirect("Search", Map.of("q", this);
}
}
You can try to avoid the discourse, but if you're American then you're in it. This administration is destroying the country for many reasons: profit, hatred of democracy, racism, control. And FWIW, it's the current administration foaming at the mouth about a font change, not the last one.
In this case, the decision is solely because the last guy did something and they can't let anything from the last administration stand.
Let's say, in an alternate universe where Rubio's department genuinely thought there were cost or coordination issues with Calibri. They could have reversed the decision and cited that. But no: Making a font that is more compatible with screen reader technology is woke. Their words, not mine.
So apparently Daring Fireball (of all places) got their hands on the full memo text[1]. And in all of the text, there are 2 sentences total that refer to DEI at all, the rest of it is talking about those coordination and cost issues. So I guess they did do that, they just also had to take their shots at DEI because why be in politics these days if you can't virtue signal even the most standard of decisions.
[1]: https://daringfireball.net/misc/2025/12/state-department-ret...