baddox

16 ms·

121.
by baddox 6y ago
Or for that matter, can a random person sell digital items to be used in Fortnite?
122.
by baddox 6y ago
That may very well be true, but making arguments that conceal your true world view or "axioms" is intellectually dishonest.
123.
by baddox 6y ago
But of course, that interpretation of 2 Timothy is a post hoc defense of biblical inerrancy. There are much more obvious reasons for religious authorities to emphasize the absolute authority of religious scriptures (particularly when they a
124.
by baddox 6y ago
> That's the whole point: some people value purpose more than they value explanation. Sure, but I don't think the debate is over whether creationists derive a sense of purpose from their beliefs. I have no doubt that they do. Y
125.
by baddox 6y ago
It’s still not a good explanation to say “humans must have some purpose, therefore this one very specific made-up thing must be true.” What about all the other made-up things which also purport to explain the purpose of humans? Explanations
126.
by baddox 6y ago
Maybe I’m just out of the loop, but I haven’t heard that one, and I find it hard to believe it’s anywhere near as widespread as QAnon.
127.
by baddox 6y ago
It implies that they are analogous, not that they are similarly dangerous.
128.
by baddox 6y ago
Apple’s market cap is 15 times bigger than Nike’s. That’s all I meant.
129.
by baddox 6y ago
Perfect competition is definitely taught as a concept, mostly as a benchmark to measure real-world markets against, but I don’t think it’s literally an assumption of everything you learn in Econ 101.
130.
by baddox 6y ago
No one said anything remotely close to that.
131.
by baddox 6y ago
I think just the difference in the "mass" part of "mass-market."
132.
by baddox 6y ago
That's roughly equivalent to asking "if someone drives drunk, will they kill someone else or not?" Many times, they won't hurt anyone, but I hope it's not controversial that driving drunk is still extremely dangerou
133.
by baddox 6y ago
> Things you can't do without. This gets tricky. Of course we know that when there's a fire, a firefighter is often imminently essential. But it's trickier to imagine a society where all "non-essential" jobs are
134.
by baddox 6y ago
Right, but planning a terrorist attack isn't "they can't satisfiably prove he's done anything wrong."
135.
by baddox 6y ago
How can you “catch a terrorist” without proving that they have done something wrong?
136.
by baddox 6y ago
It's certainly plausible, but it still feels like something is missing. How did the boss hear about this? "Someone told him." This all just sounds so very odd.
137.
by baddox 6y ago
Yeah, I hate to reflexively take the side of a huge corporation here. I don't doubt that Apple has abusive employer relations, but it really does feel like there's something missing from this story.
138.
by baddox 6y ago
That is an absolute monster of a page, and while the JS is slow, that's not even where the problems begin. This thing is 1.5 MB of HTML , which takes 3-4 seconds just to download on my gigabit connection (it doesn't appear to sup
139.
by baddox 6y ago
Right, and as discussed in this thread and others, Apple does not have a smartphone monopoly under any remotely reasonable definition of the term.
140.
by baddox 6y ago
Don't some modern high-end residential HVAC systems have separate air conditioners and dehumidifiers to provide more granularity (and perhaps effectiveness or energy efficiency) between the two effects?
141.
by baddox 6y ago
> which is to consider whether it would be anticompetitive for Google to ban other app stores from Android That's what I'm getting at. Is it anticompetitive to deliberately make your product worse by removing a key differentiat
142.
by baddox 6y ago
> For the sake of argument, is there a limit to the number or kind of extra steps before you'd call it unusable? Surely this comes down to what reasonable expectations are held by the customer. There are microcontrollers you can buy
143.
by baddox 6y ago
I'm not sure why that's relevant. Am I only not dying of thirst because I agreed to the terms offered by the local water company? I think it's not contradictory to believe two things simultaneously: that people should not b
144.
by baddox 6y ago
I see your point, but surely it's not controversial that Epic very deliberately broke the rules in order to get its app removed from the App Store, right? Epic is probably just hoping that iPhone owners will take Epic's side and b
145.
by baddox 6y ago
> Also, on macOS, you were sold the explicit ability to run whatever software you want. It's purpose is to run software from third-parties. I agree with that, and I think there would be a much stronger argument if Apple changed MacO
146.
by baddox 6y ago
> To them, it's a device that is only capable of running games. And Spotify, YouTube, Netflix, live TV, Plex, home automation, web browsing, Skype, etc. In other words, nearly everything an iPhone can do and probably very near 100%
147.
by baddox 6y ago
I'm curious how someone could argue that Apple's App Store rules are anticompetitve and that they should be forced to change them, while also arguing that the same doesn't apply to Tesla's media computer(s). Is it just b
148.
by baddox 6y ago
That's fair enough. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to the subjective argument "Apple is really big and profitable now, and I don't like their App Store rules, so let's try to get them to change it." I find it
149.
by baddox 6y ago
This argument seems to hinge on the assumption that two parties are experiencing similar "levels of desperation": a person dying of thirst, and the developers of a video game which is available on half a dozen platforms and is pro
150.
by baddox 6y ago
That's a bizarre argument. It seems to imply that Apple could avoid these allegations by either increasing or decreasing the restrictions they place on third-party developers.

More ›