3 ms·

The device isn't "owned by you and under your control" if your passwords were synced without your doing or permission.

lapcat 2y ago
> The device isn't "owned by you and under your control" if your passwords were synced without your doing or permission. Why are you being repeatedly, needlessly pedantic? Everyone knows what I meant (including you, who chose to misinterpret). Your other comment was also pointless: "that's still choosing Mac over Linux and every day you continue to make that choice." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42016888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42016888 You can play with your own ultra-strict definitions of "own" and "choose", but please do it in your own mind, and don't pester us with them in these comments. It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
- eadmund 2y ago
  I don’t think that’s a terribly kind response. There’s nothing pedantic about pointing out that as an Apple product user you are not actually in control of the device which is purportedly yours. That’s not an ‘ultra-strict definition’ of control: it’s just what the word means. I think that it adds a ton to the conversation to note that using Apple software is a choice. Continuing to use Apple software, even after Apple upload all your passwords to iCloud, is a choice. Not switching to alternatives is a choice. Those may all be defensible choices. They may even be correct. But they’re still choices. In your particular case, given that you appear to support yourself by selling iOS apps, it probably makes sense to keep using Apple devices. Retraining to write software running on Linux would be work. And few Linux users would buy software anyway. But if you ever get tired of using OSes you can’t control on devices you can’t control, and want to write software to do what you want, you might want to come on over to Linux. It’s pretty fun!
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > There’s nothing pedantic about pointing out that as an Apple product user you are not actually in control of the device which is purportedly yours. That’s not an ‘ultra-strict definition’ of control: it’s just what the word means. No, it's not what the word meant. What a word means depends on context. If I had simply said, "The good news is that the device was in my home under my observation", then the commenter "mcsniff" would have no opportunity to go off on a rant about "ownership" and "control". Or maybe you're going to argue pedantically that it's not "my" home, because I'm a renter? Or would you argue with someone with a mortgage that it's not "your" home, it's the bank's home? That's just pointless pedantry that clarifies nothing and benefits nobody. > I think that it adds a ton to the conversation to note that using Apple software is a choice. Continuing to use Apple software, even after Apple upload all your passwords to iCloud, is a choice. Not switching to alternatives is a choice. Everything is a choice. Therefore it's a tautology and adds zero to the conversation. Your comment was a choice. My comment is a choice. Choice choice choice choice. So what?

> The device isn't "owned by you and under your control" if your passwords were synced without your doing or permission. Why are you being repeatedly, needlessly pedantic? Everyone knows what I meant (including you, who chose to misinterpret). Your other comment was also pointless: "that's still choosing Mac over Linux and every day you continue to make that choice." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42016888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42016888 You can play with your own ultra-strict definitions of "own" and "choose", but please do it in your own mind, and don't pester us with them in these comments. It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

eadmund 2y ago
I don’t think that’s a terribly kind response. There’s nothing pedantic about pointing out that as an Apple product user you are not actually in control of the device which is purportedly yours. That’s not an ‘ultra-strict definition’ of control: it’s just what the word means. I think that it adds a ton to the conversation to note that using Apple software is a choice. Continuing to use Apple software, even after Apple upload all your passwords to iCloud, is a choice. Not switching to alternatives is a choice. Those may all be defensible choices. They may even be correct. But they’re still choices. In your particular case, given that you appear to support yourself by selling iOS apps, it probably makes sense to keep using Apple devices. Retraining to write software running on Linux would be work. And few Linux users would buy software anyway. But if you ever get tired of using OSes you can’t control on devices you can’t control, and want to write software to do what you want, you might want to come on over to Linux. It’s pretty fun!
- lapcat 2y ago
  > There’s nothing pedantic about pointing out that as an Apple product user you are not actually in control of the device which is purportedly yours. That’s not an ‘ultra-strict definition’ of control: it’s just what the word means. No, it's not what the word meant. What a word means depends on context. If I had simply said, "The good news is that the device was in my home under my observation", then the commenter "mcsniff" would have no opportunity to go off on a rant about "ownership" and "control". Or maybe you're going to argue pedantically that it's not "my" home, because I'm a renter? Or would you argue with someone with a mortgage that it's not "your" home, it's the bank's home? That's just pointless pedantry that clarifies nothing and benefits nobody. > I think that it adds a ton to the conversation to note that using Apple software is a choice. Continuing to use Apple software, even after Apple upload all your passwords to iCloud, is a choice. Not switching to alternatives is a choice. Everything is a choice. Therefore it's a tautology and adds zero to the conversation. Your comment was a choice. My comment is a choice. Choice choice choice choice. So what?