_qulr

21 ms·

151.
by _qulr 6y ago
> why are people so surprised? Because the DTK was handled completely differently by Apple during the PowerPC to Intel transition.
152.
by _qulr 6y ago
> Most 'reviewers' on YouTube especially are just hyping products for their own views. That's not who I meant by the professional news media.
153.
by _qulr 6y ago
Apple isn't giving back anything. Participants get a $200 discount on a new M1 Mac purchase until May 31. If the participant has already purchased an M1 Mac and doesn't need another one, then they get nothing. And the store credit
154.
by _qulr 6y ago
> Carter has taken speaking fees https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-33... Former President Jimmy Carter "seldom accepts speaking fees," The Associated Press wrote in 2002, "and when
155.
by _qulr 6y ago
1. Online crowdsourced ratings can't be trusted anywhere. Not in the App Store, not on Amazon, etc. They're just too easy to game. The role of reviewing products was always best done by the professional news media. 2. The App Stor
156.
by _qulr 6y ago
> I expect Apple will take this very seriously. This is not a new problem by any means. Apple has been largely ignoring it for many years, only taking action when there's bad PR like now.
157.
by _qulr 6y ago
> What she did was give glorified TED Talks to a group. It's a performance. Even more reason to think that it's "selling out" and not "real" work.
158.
by _qulr 6y ago
> The current president often has a deep dislike of the former president and entities perceived as close to him This is not necessarily true. The Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas are like one big happy family. Trump is the exception because
159.
by _qulr 6y ago
> You have people complaining and asking for recusal. It's negative publicity and a hindrance to corrupt acts. A lot better than prison though.
160.
by _qulr 6y ago
> Logistically, this is the stupidest way to bribe someone. There is a clear paper trail and everyone knows about it. In other words, it's perfectly legal bribery, and thus the smartest way to bribe someone. Just like political camp
161.
by _qulr 6y ago
Exactly this. Bill Clinton's life goal wasn't to use the Presidency as a stepping stone to wealth. He just wanted to be President, and would probably still be running if there weren't term limits. But once you enter the gover
162.
by _qulr 6y ago
> I don't think she's the same case as, e.g., someone who was employed by an investment bank for a long time, takes a federal position for a year or two, then goes back to working in banking. True. Yellen clearly prefers public
163.
by _qulr 6y ago
> If Yellen lacked scruples, she would have gone into the private sector after leaving the Fed. 1. She did go into the private sector. She got paid for speeches. That's not a public sector job. 2. It's not mutually exclusive to
164.
by _qulr 6y ago
She did go into the private sector. How are these paid speaking engagements not private sector?
165.
by _qulr 6y ago
> How much do you think it should cost to get a former president to give a talk? That's not the right question. The question is whether ex-Presidents ought to accept these bribes. Compare the post-Presidencies of Bill Clinton and Ji
166.
by _qulr 6y ago
I would consider the speaking circuit to be an industry position. A very lucrative one.
167.
by _qulr 6y ago
> If Yellen wanted to sell out, she would have worked in industry What do you think Yellen is going to do 4-8 years from now?
168.
by _qulr 6y ago
> 700K is a pittance compared to the millions she would earn in the private sector. We're talking about that amount of money for just a few days of "work". > Yet people begrudge her the 220K she does earn. Treasury Secr
169.
by _qulr 6y ago
You can set DerivedData to Project-relative Location with the Project Settings command in Xcode's File menu.
170.
by _qulr 6y ago
You speak as though app developers are swimming in money, but the fact is that the App Store market is very top heavy. As usual, "the 1%" are doing extremely well, but the vast majority of app developers are not making a lot of mo
171.
by _qulr 6y ago
> You post screenshots of your app in progress for feedback. Scammer dupes those, rushes app into store, and when you finally launch, they "were there first" and requests your deletion on those grounds. I seriously doubt this h
172.
by _qulr 6y ago
> why isn’t somebody complaining who got scammed? Don’t they want $400 back? Many App Store customers literally do not know that they can request a refund, or how to request one. App Store does not even have a clear refund policy. You se
173.
by _qulr 6y ago
I said: "This feels to me like Apple creating a convenient Orwellian enemy. They're not even competitors" In other words, Apple is creating an enemy for themselves , an enemy of Apple. When in fact the two companies are not
174.
by _qulr 6y ago
> you’ve provided zero evidence for this. You claim that Apple have implied Facebook There were dozens, maybe hundreds of news media stories yesterday stating that Apple was attacking Facebook, so it's not just me. Here are 2 exampl
175.
by _qulr 6y ago
> they’re probably the first name that pops into people heads when you say “abuse of peoples data” > I don’t think Apple gives a shit about Facebook. Why the hell would they? There’s no profit in targeting them specifically. I think y
176.
by _qulr 6y ago
> It gets 30% of sales and in-app purchases. Facebook doesn't use either as far as I know. Facebook does have IAP, as already discussed in other sub-comments. > If they'd foreseen influential companies like Facebook creating
177.
by _qulr 6y ago
Apple kicked Parler off the App Store, and a lot of people are screaming at Apple, including powerful politicians. In any case, part of my previous comment was noting how the decade+ of the App Store has actually contributed to and encourag
178.
by _qulr 6y ago
> Other than in direct responses to attacks by Facebook, where has Apple even used Facebook’s name? They don't have to use the name. Everyone including the news media knew that Apple was implying Facebook.
179.
by _qulr 6y ago
> Given Apple's focus on privacy combined with their huge footprint in the US, Facebook may see them as an existential threat, and be using the word "competitor" to represent that. I agree that Apple is an existential thre
180.
by _qulr 6y ago
> I doubt it is particularly large. Facebook is currently 43 in the list of the top grossing apps. I'm still running iTunes 12.6 which shows these lists.

More ›