lapcat

17 ms·

331.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> If you demand that I work with some ancient version, I then have to install and uninstall said program every time I work on your ticket specifically. You completely missed the point of the blog post. Apple was in the process of devel
332.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> Not all bugs are easily reproducible Apple did not say they couldn't reproduce it. Neither did they say that they thought they fixed it. They refused to say anything except "Verify with macOS 26.4 beta 4". > and even
333.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> Of course, the only way to counter this is by saying "Yes I verified it" without actually verifying it. I'm not going to lie. That's not who I am. If Apple really wants to close a bug report when the bug isn't
334.
by lapcat 7mo ago
I think you're incorrectly assuming two things: 1. Apple engineers actually attempted to fix the bug. 2. Feedback Assistant "Please verify with the latest beta" matches the Radar "Verify" state. I don't believe
335.
Talking Liquid Glass with Apple(captainswiftui.substack.com)
17 points by lapcat 7mo ago|17 comments
336.
by lapcat 7mo ago
It's comment catnip for HN though.
337.
by lapcat 7mo ago
The typos will continue until morale improves.
338.
by lapcat 7mo ago
I wouldn't place much stock in small studies like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
339.
by lapcat 7mo ago
This is incorrect. The setting does not apply to Safari. It's for App Store, for example.
340.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> I’m also increasingly skeptical of anyone who sells me something that supposedly saves my time. Imagine a world in which the promise of AI was that workers could keep their jobs, at the same compensation as before, but work fewer hours
341.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> if it's limited to re-writing clickbait headlines It's already not so limited: "sometimes changing their meaning in the process." "It almost sounds like we’re endorsing a product we do not recommend at all.&q
342.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> I don't want to dunk on a strawman. You said "it is harder to jump in to a mature field with its own jargon and concerns." I asked how it's harder than in the past. Your long reply did not appear to explain this at
343.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> The cost is SPECIFICALLY that it is harder to jump in to a mature field with its own jargon and concerns. Hasn't that been the case for decades? What specifically is different now, such that for some reason it's harder to jum
344.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> In the 90s the same argument was directed at this new thing called the internet, and those who placed a bet on it being a fad ended up being forgotten by history. Almost all people are "forgotten" by history. In any case, peo
345.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> it will be nearly impossible to learn them from scratch. Are you claiming that all future generations of would-be programmers are doomed?
346.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> Transformative for the better? Time will tell I suppose That's the point of the blog post. If you can't even say right now whether it's for the better, then there's no reason to rush in.
347.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> https://feedbackassistant.apple.com/feedback/22280434 (that seems to need a login?). All Feedbacks that you file are private to your own Apple Account.
348.
by lapcat 7mo ago
It depends. Some sites have a soft, client-side paywall and others have a hard, server-side paywall. NYT has the latter, so you can't get the full article text with JS blocked.
349.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> This is a pretty inconsequential blog post where Gruber is just echoing another article. It's a link blog.
350.
by lapcat 7mo ago
At this point, there's no reason to take anything Musk says at face value. He's proved to be an unreliable narrator. Here's just one small example: https://web.archive.org/web/20201006045204/https:&#
351.
by lapcat 7mo ago
Correct. Pronatalism is a just a front, sometimes for pure racism. Remember that Musk grew up in Apartheid South Africa. They're worried about demographic shifts away from white dominance of the US. Also, according to the article, Musk
352.
by lapcat 7mo ago
I think one of the reasons politicians can be bought so cheaply by interest groups is that the opponents of the interests groups have practically no money. The interest groups don't need to spend a ton as long as they spend more th
353.
by lapcat 7mo ago
In my opinion, this article looks like a straw man argument, and the author appears to completely misinterpret "This is not the computer for you." Such a statement needs to be understood in the relevant context. It's not inte
354.
by lapcat 7mo ago
Good point. I think that should be added here: > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abus
355.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> Relying on the humans here to self censor has never worked in the history of man. They're guidelines. HN is based almost entirely on self-censorship, and moderation has always been light at best, partly due to the moderator-to-com
356.
by lapcat 7mo ago
I had been wondering if and when HN would update its guidelines for this. Glad to see it.
357.
by lapcat 7mo ago
An Orwellian dystopia has grown unabated, regardless of who is in power. Remember that the Snowden revelations came out in the Obama administration. The pervasive surveillance that has invaded every aspect of our lives is not even a politic
358.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> what alternative do you propose? Your question is ambigious. Are you asking what a different system would look like, or how we would get there? As for the first question, there are many obvious ways to improve the system. Here are some
359.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> So most of the 'wealthy' people exist as such with social permission because they're employed in production, and if they fail at that job the wealth rapidly evaporates. It's misleading to say "they're empl
360.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> Yes, because the designers of the system were well-read Well-read in the 18th century. And they borrowed heavily from 17th century philosopher John Locke. Imagine relying on 17th or 18th century medicine now. The founders weren't

More ›