If Costco would ban all electronics products that phone home, gratuitously depend on servers (which is now most IoT products), and/or spy on the user... I might have to become a lifetime citizen of Costco.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdNmOOq6T8Y
Readit Newstrurl commented on Pay no attention to the USB port behind the “no USB” sticker theverge.com/2023/8/4/238... · Posted by u/occamschainsaw
trurl commented on Atuin replaces your existing shell history with a SQLite database github.com/ellie/atuin... · Posted by u/thunderbong
Excellent! I had been thinking of building something along the same lines when I switched from `zsh` to `fish`, as I had been missing `zsh_stats`. Now I don't have to and can focus on my other side project!
trurl commented on Fantasy Jodorowsky Tron visualisations djfood.org/fantasy-jodoro... · Posted by u/bj-rn
It's worth mentioning re: the disagreement on runtime that Jodorosky wanted a 24 hour runtime.
I also seem to recall something about Salvador Dalí wanting a flaming giraffe?
trurl commented on Mold linker may switch to a source-available license github.com/rui314/mold/re... · Posted by u/MForster
I think one thing that would definitely help the mold project is to have a clearer price and licensing model. The only thing I can find is https://opencollective.com/mold-linker.
It would be much easier to be able to go to my manager with that kind of information. Right now the conversation goes:
"Hey, this linker could save us quite a bit of time on our enormous executable." "Okay, how much will it cost us?" "Well, there is this site where you can donate on a regular basis."
If there is no support for recursion, this can hardly be called "Datalog".
Because Apple still wields control over iOS, which means they can also curate how the sideloading experience. I don't believe that even if legislation and regulator action forces iOS to permit sideloading, that it necessitates sideloading to be done in as casual a process as it is to download and install software on macOS, Windows, or desktops in general. Apple will still be able to determine how sideloading is done. And they can make the process very guarded, with multiple disclaimer screens and agreement menus that the user must assent to before they are allowed to sideload. Even on Android today, enabling sideloading is a multiple step process:
https://techcult.com/sideload-apps-on-android/
Furthermore, I believe that Apple can choose to shape the experience even after sideloading is enabled. They can add badge icons that single out sideloaded apps. They can force sideloaded apps to be on specifically marked pages on the springboard. They can add alerts and popovers galore that ask the user "Do you really want to do that?" wrt the sideloaded apps. Apple is a master of UX and branding - if they can influence millions of users via the blue iMessage bubble vs. the green SMS chat bubble dichotomy, they can find a way to subtly single out sideloaded apps as worthy of concern. Emergent user behavior then follows.
Finally, as I have mentioned in the previous link, Apple still controls the operating system that all apps, whether sideloaded or not, exist on. If they wanted to harden its security and strengthen entitlements in such a way that even sideloaded apps cannot bypass certain privacy or security safeguards, they can probably find a way. At they very least, they can introduce a similar notarization process that they already do on macOS on non-Mac App Store apps.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin...
Yeah, I figured someone might try this argument.
Everyone seems to keep forgetting, there is already an option on iOS for developers not wanting to go through the App Store: web apps. I believe WASM can even be used these days. Except that Safari doesn't offer developers some privacy sensitive APIs other browsers do. The current side loading pressure has very little to do avoiding Apple's cut and everything to do with bypassing Apple's restrictions.
So I expect should Apple introduce a heavily sandboxed side-loading experience, we'd be seeing developers complain they are not adhering to the spirit or the law or lawsuit.
Those instances show that Facebook is willing to do that to small incentivized groups of users- in that case, volunteers offered monetary benefit via gift cards, but difficult to say such a model is accomplishable on a wide scale. This is a situation where the users were self-selecting.
Certainly, companies will misuse and abuse the freedoms associated with sideloading, but I disagree that it’s as an easy task as people think. First they actually have to build competing app stores that are compelling enough for users to overcome the friction of switching. I don’t think these companies, other than game platforms like Epic, and perhaps tech companies in politically sensitive markets such as China or Russia, have it in them:
I don't understand why you think building alternative app stores is somehow a limiting factor. If you want to use some software, and the company wants to bypass Apple's protections, they'll just put a download link on their website. Why go through the hassle of registering with any "app store" at all?
I agree. We only have to look 3 years ago to see exactly what happens when those same companies get sideload access. Facebook did something very similar, using their Apple App Store Developer certificate to enroll users as "employees," allowing them to defacto sideload their market research application.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19033451
I also fully expect the last browser holding against Google's browser monoculture - Safari - to die soon after.
I hate this state of affairs, where Apple's sheer greed is the main force stablizing this fragile environment.
I agree that having to rely on Apple here is not great, but no other ecosystem is even trying.
It's hilarious how they call privacy features "apocalypse." Kudos for Apple for making the lives of these folks more difficult.
And still folks think that if side loading is forced on Apple, that companies will not force us to start side loading their apps to escape this "apocalypse".
trurl commented on Logica, a novel open-source logic programming language opensource.googleblog.com... · Posted by u/layer8
SQL 99 has recursion via recursive CTEs, so the claim is probably valid.
Fair enough, but to a database theoretician SQL means "non-recursive conjunctive queries". And I skimmed the tutorial and there is not a single example of using Logica to compute something recursively. Transitive closure is the canonical example for showing off Datalog.