isodev

38 ms·

931.
by isodev 2y ago
Then the blame can safely go to the vendor who opted not to take advantage. If anything, the Crowdstrike incident highlights the lack of diversity in the OS/security space. Everyone using the same stack makes everyone vulnerable to the
932.
by isodev 2y ago
This is ridiculous though. Nothing is stopping Microsoft from offering “safe” access to both themselves and third parties. Also, let’s not forget why these restrictions are applied in the first place - they kick in when the corp grows to be
933.
by isodev 2y ago
There was an earthquake the other day, people were talking about it on both Mastodon and Bluesky, twitter didn’t even have a mention until after it was over. Whatever it is on Twitter, it’s a very specific subset of news, usually the kind y
934.
by isodev 2y ago
Big difference between can't and won't. Apple is clearly in the "we're going to be as difficult as possible because we don't like it" category. Meta is not too far behind (already annoyed by all the things that
935.
by isodev 2y ago
So we just have to live with every mistake and “mood” Apple has dropped into Swift, accumulating complexities and “time to ponder what I’m doing wrong” while debugging?
936.
by isodev 2y ago
And is SwiftUI's @MainActor annotation "main thread" enough for this? e.g. if a View with @MainActor annotation renders a child which is a NSCell/NSImage/NSImageRep/NSAnimation wrapped in a representable - all
937.
by isodev 2y ago
Good call. Thank you for sharing, it’s really quite fascinating.
938.
by isodev 2y ago
I think probably Xcode should say something if one tries to. (concurrency checking is brand new in Swift 6). Like the post says, it’s not always clear if you’re working with a class which inherits from NSCopyObject, so how does one “break
939.
by isodev 2y ago
> Ironically, Swift’s attempts to prevent incorrect code actually make it harder to write correct code Yes, and strict concurrency deserves a post on itself. I wonder how NSCopyObject works with actor isolation?
940.
by isodev 2y ago
So much for Safari and privacy. It really breaks my mind that Apple makes people pay for extra protection with Private Relay while secretly sharing ad data.
941.
by isodev 2y ago
The things we could have had if it wasn’t necessary to use regulation to force Apple into doing the right thing.
942.
by isodev 2y ago
Even for apps in 3rd party storefronts? I always thought these rules are somewhat relaxed for external publications but perhaps I was mistaken. It’s not like we have proper “side loading” yet.
943.
by isodev 2y ago
I would say I'm sad that the destruction of twitter also came with the erosion of the concept of blue checkmarks. It was a useful indicator, e.g. "am I interacting with the official handle of ...?". This is no longer possible
944.
by isodev 2y ago
It would. And this is where some legislation "in the spirit of" would have helped. So Microsoft's huge legal arm can't just wiggle their way out on technicalities. Clearly, the law is not prepared to face the challenge o
945.
by isodev 2y ago
It needs to start somewhere, right? We can't "just build" a NX-class starship without sciencing it out and R&D.
946.
by isodev 2y ago
Maybe they don't need a new subdomain, something unused could do the trick.
947.
by isodev 2y ago
It's a modal popup obstructing the entire website. Can't miss it :)
948.
by isodev 2y ago
> to sell generally anti-tech regulations to rent seek or enrich their own local special interest groups. Actual consumers are being treated as a bargaining chip. Which is false and not at all in line with the DMA and the bigger framewor
949.
by isodev 2y ago
Before the DMA compliance, Apple was known as supposedly caring about privacy and creating a good and safe user experience. They could have opted to incorporate the spirit of the DMA into their products world-wide (as it aligns well with wh
950.
by isodev 2y ago
It's false and clickbaity.
951.
by isodev 2y ago
The EU regulation states that tobacco health warnings must use an image from the EU approved gallery. Come to think of it, the next iteration of the ePrivacy Directive should force vendors to use only pre-approved designs for the consent pr
952.
by isodev 2y ago
It's a tiny nuance, but what would really open Apple to competition is allowing 3rd party developers to offer replacement experiences for "Intelligence" and other functions, like the OpenAI integration. The DMA seems vague on
953.
by isodev 2y ago
Notarization as it exists today as well. It's absurd that everyone on the planet needs to ask some corporation for permission to allow users to use their app in a normal way.
954.
by isodev 2y ago
You're correct. Server-rendered pages may also have some client-side interactivity using, for example, JavaScript/AJAX.... It doesn't need to be a fancy framework like htmx, but one needs to be mindful about user input and re
955.
by isodev 2y ago
That's concerning of course and I'm also happy the vulnerabilities have been discovered and resolved. Love them or hate them, CocoaPods are still essential when building apps for Apple platforms. There are entire ecosystems like K
956.
Apple crippled watchOS to corner heart-tracking market, doctors say(theregister.com)
32 points by isodev 2y ago|17 comments
957.
by isodev 2y ago
Haha, this is so much fun! I love Elixir/LiveView!
958.
by isodev 2y ago
It has in-app purchases! Apple doesn't reject shady apps that bring revenue unless it's really bad for PR.
959.
by isodev 2y ago
Also Safari, for years it wasn't even possible to sign-into Teams (even to chat), let alone calls (all while apps like google meet had no trouble to provide both features).
960.
by isodev 2y ago
Because PWAs are limited in more ways than practical to list here, just to name a few - the browser they run in, restricted by the availability and quality of internet connection, they're not sustainable as build tools don't even

More ›