The Accessibility permission is not granted automatically to apps on the Mac. You have to specifically allow it for an app. So you retain control and assurance even without Apple lockdown.
You're missing the point: it isn't about the OS. The direct distribution version of the app has full functionality. The problem is with the Mac App Store.
You're missing the point. We know that countless developers, including the author of the blog post, have received App Store rejections of submissions. On the other hand, to my knowledge, exactly zero developers have ever been banned from the App Store for doing what the commenter claimed would instantly get you banned.
I come from a very different, old-school perspective, because I hand-write my blog posts in HTML and also hand-write my RSS feed in XML.
I've found CDATA invaluable, because I can just copy and paste the content from the HTML file to the XML file. I've never used the CDATA terminator characters in a blog post, so that's a non-problem.
> This is mostly about when you write your automated feed generator.
Yes, that's why I said, "I come from a very different, old-school perspective."
However, I don't find the points persuasive:
1. A special case for the CDATA terminator doesn't seem any worse than special cases for every HTML character that needs to be escaped in XML.
2. I'm not sure who exactly the hypothetical misled people are (straw men?) who would think "the content is raw HTML or somehow safer."
3. I'm not sure how split CDATA blocks is "less uniform" than escaped characters or why less uniform output is a downside, especially as you state in another comment, "IMHO, RSS is for feed readers, not humans."
4. I'm not sure how CDATA makes "debugging confusing," and in any case using CDATA blocks inside an article seems like a pretty rare case; like I said, I haven't done that myself.
The argument is from the generator implementation point of view. Using regular escape is much simpler. Unlike regular escape, you still cannot use CDATA for attribute values. CDATA might quickly become a footgun because it can give you a false sense of security. Regular escaping is much more universal and also works with HTML content / attribute values.
> I'm not sure how CDATA makes "debugging confusing," and in any case using CDATA blocks inside an article seems like a pretty rare case; like I said, I haven't done that myself.
Debugging can be confusing when you actually encounter that closing sequence, the text becomes much less readable and seems kind of broken. With regular escape the content is more distinguishable (even though harder to read) from the structural XML. Actually, its rarity can be more of a problem because you might never know about it and not even handle it in your own serializer at all. The "magic" of CDATA is dangerous. You might not believe it, but many developers still don't do any proper escaping when injecting text in DOM elements. They often do element.innerHTML = "Some untrusted text". I have seen such things countless of times.
Techies believed they didn't need unions because their compensation is high, and "meritocracy" yadda yadda. But unions were never just about compensation. Crucially, they also collectively negotiate working conditions.
You quitting your job is not necessarily much of a threat to your employer. But a union going on strike, effectively everyone quitting simlultaneously, is a major threat.
> Pain a warning signal from the body. It's something one should listen to, not just try to ignore and overrule.
This is vastly overstating the rationality of the human body. It's no more rational than the human mind, which is often quite irrational. Your body isn't the product of medical school, nor intelligent design, but rather random natural selection, which is decent but demonstrably far from perfect.
Sure, but how good are you at judging if a human mind is irrational or not without engaging in conversation with it? Why not extend that logic to your body.
I fail to see where anything I said implied that I disagree with that sentiment.
Also, you were arguing we should not listen to pain when it's acting irrational, as in unreasonable. Then you switch to "all minds being irrational", as in actually not rational. That's not the same thing.
I have no interest in playing this silly analogy game. You can't have a "conversation" with your body any more than you can have a conversation with your pet cat. Hey cat, we're trying to save your damn life, so stop resisting the veterinarians and the pills!
If you have a point to make, then make it literally, not metaphorically.
I'm sincerely sorry for you if you are suggesting that you are completely unable to communicate with your pet cat or observe its behavior and reason about why it makes sense just because it lacks language. I assume you don't actually have that problem but that is what your comment literally implies.
I made my point and you're ignoring it: you imply that all pain is unreasonable because the body is "irrational". By that logic, you are saying that my earlier example of a sprained ankle hurting when I lean on it means my body is "unreasonable" for signalling that I should not lean on a healing sprained ankle. Quite frankly I think anyone ignoring that and harming themselves more in the process is an idiot.
The example of a cat hissing at the veterinarian because it cannot distinguish the situation from a real threat does not mean that cat's never hiss at real threats. If you cannot even be bothered to tell the difference and blame your cat on every occasion, you're being more irrational than the cat.
Especially if a new one, pain is undoubtedly a 'warning signal from the body' which is a succinct metaphor we all understand and has a clear meaning. If you don't know why or from whence the pain, check it out. It may be one of those things or perhaps not.
The previous commenter appears to argue that you need to diagnose every headache, which sounds absurd to me.
Occasionally I have a headache. Not frequently, and I don't necessarily know why. These things just happen. I take a painkiller, and problem solved. I've been seen by doctors over the years for physicals or other reasons, and there's no indication of any underlying medical condition. An occasional headache is not an indicator of something more serious, and the painkiller is not "masking" a larger problem.
The same goes for random muscle aches. They're infrequent, but they can happen, for whatever reason, and there's no reason to panic or to suffer when you can just make them go away.
I don't think I'm unusual here. As far as I've heard, random, infrequent headaches or other aches are extremely common.
Moreover, there are pains that we know the cause: for example, I experience a bump or a cut. My body continues to annoy me with pain unnecessarily. Yes, I'm healing, I'm well aware of that. I just need my body to STFU with the pain and stop reminding me of it.
Unless you have migraines, that headache is caused by something and you'll be much better taking an anti-allergic, or a sinus cleaner, or whatever else actually solves the underlying issue or make the specific symptom go away.
The same goes for muscle aches. There is also specific medicine for them. And you are probably better with an anti-inflammatory for a bump. (It's not normal for cuts to hurt for a long time.)
> you'll be much better taking an anti-allergic, or a sinus cleaner, or whatever else actually solves the underlying issue or make the specific symptom go away.
You can't even say what I should take. X or Y or... whatever else? That's not helpful at all.
if you go to any doctor of any specialization in any point of the world and tell them "doctor, once every three months I get an headache" I guarantee that the answer will be "does it go away with an ibuprofen/paracetamol?"
> Neither is a car, but I still take it to get checked out when a warning light is on.
I can't believe I need to say this, but cars did not evolve by natural selection. Cars are intelligently designed (by humans, not by God) to show a warning light when there is a problem you should get checked out. So cars are actually rational in that respect.
> I can't believe I need to say this, but cars did not evolve by natural selection.
You didn't need to say that because that's not relevant. The issue was about signal to noise. The logical stance is to assume signal is signal, until you know otherwise.
> The issue was about signal to noise. The logical stance is to assume signal is signal, until you know otherwise.
I know otherwise. I have a lifetime of experience—lifetimes of experience, counting the experiences of other people—to know that pain is often just noise.
Pain is ancient. It predates rationality by millions of years, perhaps billions. The dumbest animal experiences pain. It's not a finely tuned system with documented diagnositic codes.
> I do get the sense that many atheists not only reject God & the afterlife but actually don't want there to be a God or an afterlife.
I feel that eternity in Heaven would actually be Hell, because nothing would matter. No danger, no failure, no challenge, no goals, no purpose. What gives life meaning are mortality, limitations, beginnings and endings, progress.
I recently watched the film "Eternity" on Apple TV, starring Elizabeth Olsen, in which everyone after they die has to choose their own form of afterlife and then stick with it forever. All I could think about was how bored I would eventually get. (The film itself was pretty good, not boring. That's because it had an ending!)
Fiction is ideal for playing out these scenarios. Think also of the film "Highlander", in which the ultimate "prize" of the immortals turns out to be mortality. MacLeod's life had become repetitive, and he couldn't fully invest in it, because he kept losing everyone he loved. They grew old and died, while he lived on and had to keep changing identities. For a while it's a grand adventure... until it isn't anymore.
I can certainly understand wanting to live longer, but eternity is unimaginably long, way too long. I don't think that's something to be desired.
Problems, yes. "Biology is going to kill me soon" shouldn't have to be one of those problems, and in fact I think it makes us all slightly crazy in different ways, from not caring about the future to unscrupulously believing in afterlives.
No, I was disputing "mortality" while agreeing with "challenges", which I've written as problems in the nice sense of "please let me finish my problem". That's some historical figure's alleged last words, I think.
(Edit: probably an embellishment of Archimedes, supposedly saying to the Roman soldier who killed him, "do not disturb my circles!" - not exactly a plaintive attitude about mortality, more just being a grumpy geometrist.)
The reference to eternity in afterlife doesn't mean "very long time"; it means "no time", a world that has no time. You can briefly feel the difference by being present in the current moment.
Eternity in its proper sense belongs to God alone; human beings sharing in "eternal life" will experience time differently. Even the angels experience "aeviternity" which is unique to their kind.
Could be; I'm not too literate on this, I'm only retelling what I understood directly and this could be very limited. I just wanted to point out that "eternal life" is not going to be the same life we have now, only endless. It is very different and, speaking of boredom, definitely not boring. Boredom is an invention of mind.
"All I could think about was how bored I would eventually get" I used to wonder this. I read the religious answer to this relies on the concept of infinitude: what if an infinite god can invent an infinite number of exciting new... things to do?
The vote to extend it for years failed. Then they voted to extend it for days in order to negotiate further. The 10 day extension was by voice vote (basically, they all shout at the same time), so there's no record of that.
> If you are elected to congress, your job is to get bills passed.
This is a vast oversimplification. Your job is to represent your consistuents. In many cases, this means your job is to stop bills from getting passed, especially in the current political situation.
> The more the left supports Bernie, the more people like Warren struggle to get elected
This is a very strange take. Sanders and Warren are mostly close allies and rarely compete. Both are successfully elected Senators, from separate states. Warren declined to run for President in 2016 and appeared to be supporting Sanders. In 2020 they both ran for President, but guess what, neither one of them won the Democratic nomination. In any case, it's important to recognize that elections are popularity contests and not competency tests, as should be obvious from our current President.
The issue is not even "the left." Sanders is more popular than Warren, indeed more popular than almost any politician of any party (including male politicians, if you insist on making this about gender), among political independents. Because of his popularity among independents, he's the most popular politician in the US and would have a better chance of winning the Presidency than any Democrat (of any gender), but the Democrats nonetheless refuse to nominate him. If Warren were equally popular among independents, then Democrats should nominate her, but she's not. Of course this lack of popularity among independents is not specific to Warren: most non-Democrats dislike Democrats.
In 2016, Sanders put up an unexpectedly stiff challenge to Clinton, who was considered an overwhelming frontrunner at the beginning of the race. The natural next step for the left would be to build on that momentum and push Sanders over the top in 2020. In my opinion, it's quite delusional to expect that the left would for some bizarre reason abandon Sanders in 2020 and throw their support behind Warren instead. That would make little sense. Why start over from scratch? In any case, I doubt that Warren would have fared better. The establishment doesn't want a leftist, no matter who, and they quickly conspired to consolidate around Biden, who didn't even pick Warren as his running mate.
reply