No, this is correct. Hypercorrection for this rule usually comes in the form of saying or writing things like, "would you like to come with Tom and I to the park?" due to not understanding why the rule exists, and just blindly following the pattern.
That one's still firmly in the territory of being a good rule to follow if you're trying to communicate clearly, without being distracting, and aren't aiming at some kind of particular, very colloquial register. Perhaps in 30-50 years that will have changed.
Maybe, maybe not, but by like 5th grade most of them seem to have one regardless. Many younger kids have one. By 7th it's practically all of them (a smartphone, that is, though yeah, often an iPhone)
Our school assigns every kid an iPad. In Kindergarten. Good idea? I kinda don't think so, though it's been useful this year, of course. But it happens.
Increasingly parents have trouble letting kids wander the neighborhood on their own without a tracker/communication-device on them, and a smartphone's really good at serving that role. There are other options but kids want to have their smartphone on them, and as soon as you want them to be able to do one other smartphone-thing any other option starts to look kinda pointless.
(just relating observations of parenting in the wild, not my own parenting approach)
I don't wanna have to worry about stupid computer shit when I'm just trying to use my iPad or iPhone as a tool to accomplish something else. Drawing, playing music, reading, writing, edutainment for the kids, very occasionally a game. Maybe the odd SSH session. If I decide I want some software to help me with any of those things I just want it to be in the App Store, and I just want it to use the App Store payment system. I don't want competing app stores because that might mean that sometimes what I want isn't on the Apple one, following Apple's rules about spying on my and otherwise behaving as badly as desktop software and webapps do these days. It means I have to search more than one store. Now we're veering into the stupid computer shit I don't want to have to worry about, again.
> That doesn't address the issue: those who would can't.
Then buy any other general computing product on the market. I'd be more sympathetic to this concern if Android didn't exist. Meanwhile it does, and the users who picked Apple did it because they don't care about this, they don't care very much about this, or because they actively want the App Store restrictions and the ecosystem that they create.
> You don't lose anything if you don't want to.
I very well might, though. Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system. The way software developers and publishers behave on iOS could change in ways that I don't like if they're able to viably distribute software outside the App Store. That might be OK, except forcing developers and publishers to follow the App Store rules is part of the appeal of the devices. If that'd been a major sticking point for me, I could have bought Android.
>Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system. The way software developers and publishers behave on iOS could change in ways that I don't like
Probably most apps would still be on store and hopefully you would get a cheaper version from the developer website.
What is clear but you probably don't want to admit is Apple is not fighting here for your safety but for extracting mroe money, if they were not that greedy Epic,Spotify would not have started this wars and you would have been safe in the wallgarden and extremely satisfied that the other people inside can't escape either.
> What is clear but you probably don't want to admit is Apple is not fighting here for your safety but for extracting mroe money, if they were not that greedy Epic,Spotify would not have started this wars and you would have been safe in the wallgarden and extremely satisfied that the other people inside can't escape either.
Why wouldn't I admit that? Of course the situation benefits them. I just doubt there's a way to give me all the aspects of their devices & ecosystem that I value, that doesn't also benefit them. I'd love to see them drop the cut they take, for instance. That being so high benefits me not at all, so far as I can tell.
... and if someone comes out with devices that actually compete with the specific sort of product they offer, including the integrated & closed app store and restrictions on what apps are allowed to do, and takes a lower cut of app store sales, then Apple might have to reduce their cut, too. Or this current scuffle might end up not changing the app store rules much, but dropping the cut they take substantially—personally, that's an outcome I'd love.
IMO the ideal situation for Apple fans is that Apple is forced to offer a choice to developers, either pay a fair fixed charge(like you would pay for webhosting, you have different tiers or plans and fortuneteller with web hosting you have true competition) or a developer could decide to give Apple 30% cut. Probably most developers would chose to pay the fixed fee and the Apple users will have cheaper apps and subscriptions(in app payments) while enjoying the restrictions that nobody can have the option to escape the wallgarden(not sure how are you happy with this though, say in a country Apple is forced to remove all chat apps that are encrypted including browsers and then Apple fans would just say `you should have predicted this,sell the phone and use Android`)
> Then buy any other general computing product on the market
That's not how free market works.
And it's a very silly objection.
Android is a licensed platform.from Google, but Google does not make the majority of devices.
Apple manufacturs the devices, but they sell them to me locked in the ecosystem they profit from.
Imagine being unable of refueling because your car does not work with standard oil pumps and you had to go to Apple licensed gas station whom Apple charges 30% to.
They would be prohibited from selling the car.
> I very well might, though.
But you wouldn't if you don't change your behaviour.
> Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system
That's exactly what many want from Apple.
Change the rules.
Nobody is asking Apple to relax their safety rules inside their walled garden.
If they can't allow sideloading, they're not as good as I thought.
> I could have bought Android.
I don't buy it.
If Apple sold Android powered iPhones you would still buy an iPhone, you're are buying the brand, not the product.
> Imagine being unable of refueling because your car does not work with standard oil pumps and you had to go to Apple licensed gas station whom Apple charges 30% to.
Then I'd probably buy a competing brand of car, if that bothered me? You know, one of my other choices on the market? Like how there are a bunch of Android device vendors and a couple Linux mobile vendors that I could choose if Apple's App Store model bothered me, rather than being something I actively want? I am 100% not following how this isn't a market working. The choices people are making may not be the ones you prefer—happens to me all the time with markets—but there are choices.
> That's exactly what many want from Apple.
> Change the rules.
Many developers and publishers, maybe. I'm very much unconvinced that's what the subset of users who are aware of this issue in the first place, want, for the most part. I think if it were a major problem for them they'd have bought an Android device, or something else.
> If they can't allow sideloading, they're not as good as I thought.
They do allow sideloading, it's just fairly inconvenient. They can't allow a form of it that's convenient enough to allow other app stores to thrive, without changing the character of the ecosystem for their users. I don't think any amount of being "good" at what they do would change that.
> If Apple sold Android powered iPhones you would still buy an iPhone, you're are buying the brand, not the product.
OK, cool, guess continuing this exchange is pointless.
Nothing what you say has absolutely ANYTHING to do with you being locked out from ever running your own software on Apple devices.
This is a completely false argument you're putting up - you can HAVE all of those protections while STILL having the option of replacing protected software with less safe one.
On the Mac, where the App store is not required, a great deal of software is not in the App store and as a result the user does not benefit from App Store policies for said software. By forbidding sideloading, it forces developers to meet the App Store standards or not play at all. There are developers whose software is present on the iOS app store but the companion Mac app is not.
I don't like the complete lockout either. I like being able to run my apps on my device. But it is most definitely true that the ability to sideload apps results, in practice, in some developers opting out of providing App Store protected apps in favor of asking you to sideload.
It's not false though? Games are a thing. In the sense of how systems run and how actors make decisions in it, not in terms of video games. Any change that makes it convenient to run a competing app store will almost certainly change the experience of using iOS, even for those who choose not to use an alternative app store.
If there's a way to allow easily & conveniently running one's own software without letting competing app stores work, I'm all for it. In fact there is a way to run your own software, it's just inconvenient, because time-limited so you have to re-install it periodically, which effectively kills any possibility of running a successful app store via that method.
You're right in theory, but possibly not in practice.
Consider two vendors: A and G.
A provides a full walled garden.
G provides a walled garden, but lets you side-load whatever you like, you can ignore the apps in the garden.
Everyone making apps for A puts them in the walled garden, so if you own an A, you buy an app from the garden.
For G, vendors decide for themselves whether to use the walled garden. Many choose to sell direct and avoid both the markup and the hassle of getting their apps approved.
They also get to make even more money by embedding surveillance capitalism into their apps if they sell direct. Or include completely unmoderated and unregulated adtech.
As a user, isn't G better than A, since I have the choice?
It is better than A, provided that every app in A's walled garden is also in G's walled garden. However, if in practice the apps I want to use are in A's walled garden, but sold direct on G to avoid the 30% hit, then in practice, as a user, I am better off with A if what I want are apps from the walled garden.
Of course, I can always do my research to figure out whether a side-loaded app on G is safe to use. But if what I wanted was to buy apps without having to think about them, then I can be better off with A in practice even though in theory, G provides everything A provides, and more.
Now, is there really a problem getting all the apps I use on A from G's walled garden? I don't personally know, since I don't want to go to the trouble of sorting out what is available in G's store versus what I have to sideload. So there's plenty of room to argue that in practice, G is superior to A.
Homeschool for the very advanced older of our two elementary kids, done by one partner who's also going to be working from home, kind of. Many worries about that, including 1) will that actually work out OK?, and 2) if it does will that one end up so far ahead that we're now stuck homeschooling forever? Sort of a good problem to have but also... not a good problem to have.
Middle kid's going in, at least until they probably shut down in a month or two. Youngest is going to grandparents whom we very much hope we don't give The COVID, but none of the rest is happening if that one's home. No way.
Been homeschooling mine for 15 years now. The fact that you're concerned about #1 means you're going to be just fine. Engaged and caring parents make great homeschoolers. It's the apathetic parents I've known that fail to educate their children.
From what I've seen after talking to hundreds of secular homeschoolers and the minimal research done on this topic, kids with 1-2 hours a day of study facilitated by a parent do far better academically than the typical kid in school. They also do a great job transitioning back to school (if you decide to go that route) because they are so independent and autonomous.
Have you considered any of the learning tools like Khan Academy that don't need a parent to necessarily sit down with the child and can study independently?
Also, if you need a friendly ear, I'd be happy to help you and your partner think this through. I've been a teacher for 15 years in 3 countries, founded 3 startups to support homeschoolers, and most recently led schoolclosures.org and Modulo which are working directly to provide support to families. Happy to help in any way we can.
> From what I've seen after talking to hundreds of secular homeschoolers and the minimal research done on this topic, kids with 1-2 hours a day of study facilitated by a parent do far better academically than the typical kid in school. They also do a great job transitioning back to school (if you decide to go that route) because they are so independent and autonomous.
We're banking hard on the 1-2 hours a day of direct instruction thing being true :-)
> Have you considered any of the learning tools like Khan Academy that don't need a parent to necessarily sit down with the child and can study independently?
Absolutely, apps and youtube videos are how we're going to handle much or all of "specials" instruction (foreign language, art, music—I wouldn't have counted on it for music except we happen to already be doing that and it's going better than I could have imagined) and probably some of the science and social studies work. We're mostly focused on keeping our foot on the gas for reading and math, at which she's already far "ahead", as far as direct instruction goes—a kid who can read and is curious can cover more science and social studies on their own than they do in school, we both know from experience, so if those two core literacy subjects are going well we reckon no serious long-term harm has been done, even if we somehow fail at everything else.
> Also, if you need a friendly ear, I'd be happy to help you and your partner think this through. I've been a teacher for 15 years in 3 countries, founded 3 startups to support homeschoolers, and most recently led schoolclosures.org and Modulo which are working directly to provide support to families. Happy to help in any way we can.
Oh hey, we based a bunch of our research on a pile of modulo resources you posted on an HN thread some time back! Haha, cool, didn't realize you were you until I got to this paragraph. Thanks for the work you've done, and for your kind offer of support. At this point we don't know what we don't know and our unknowns are down to things we won't uncover until we start trying it, though, I think. Which is very soon. If our Singapore Math books we ordered 2 weeks ago ever show up, that is. :-/
"You want to play house, you got to have a job. You want to play very nice house, very sweet house, then you got to have a job you don't like. Great. This is the way ninety-eight-point-nine per cent of the people work things out, so believe me, buddy, you've got nothing to apologize for."
- Revolutionary Road (Richard Yates)
Advice given to a main character who's (spoilers?) smart and thoughtful enough to be deeply bored by and unhappy with anything like a normal career, while also easily doing well at such a job while hardly trying, but who also believes deeply that he's meant for something more artistic and intellectual and adventurous but is both entirely unmotivated to actually make that happen, and also probably not that smart.
To me that meaning checks out, but is a bit archaic. It’s how you might see it used in an older translation of the Bible, or a 19th century translation of the Greek tragedians, or maybe Tolkien, or something like that.
Modern, and especially colloquial, usage tends to be as a synonym of “envious”, so far as I know. “I’m jealous of her hair”. “His Instagram posts of his beach house make me so jealous”. “Stop mocking her car—you’re just jealous”. I don’t think I’ve ever heard or seen the older meaning intended in colloquial speech or all but the stuffiest of writing in the last 20+ years.
So, as is typical, two useful words have become one word through misuse.
I took it in the spirit of questioning one’s questions, and thought it was rather good. Russellian, even. Judging from the general reaction in here this may just mean I’m a dim bulb with a bad sense of humor.
I dunno, I’m actually about halfway to being convinced that if we can figure out what causes breakfast we’ll necessarily have solved the problem of consciousness, too.
The point is breakfast is what we define it to be. It is a set of objects that have certain properties that we deem to be described as breakfast. In the same way consciousness is what we decide it to be. There is no natural definition, its a thing we made up. This also implies that searching for the natural explanation of consciousness is about as useful as searching for the natural definition of breakfast.
The article is saying that there is an experience/phenomenon of "the breakfast" that cannot be explained by an analysis of its constituents. The whole (the breakfast) is more/something else than the sum of its parts. Contemporary scientists only look at the parts because that's what their methods allow them to do/reason about. They miss the essence of the breakfast. Their methods don't even allow them to acknowledge that breakfasts exist -- however & whatever that would mean and imply.
Since I think the current scientific treatment of consciousness is rather deplorable (unconscious scientists unconsciously trying to be consciously smart), I like this article.
Interestingly an appreciation of what is meant by "qualia" seems to be correlated with age. I would wager that it is also inversely correlated with scientific qualifications. Imho there is a kind of person that while hugely clever is not necessarily very conscious and curricula (also imho) select for those kinds of people.
So when you say "unconscious scientists unconsciously trying to be consciously smart" I take it literally. I think scientists can only make such claims as "consciousness does not exist" because they are not particularly conscious themselves. Or at least their awareness is, in the flow, as it were, with no meta - no awareness of awareness and hence no consciousness as I think the term is best described.
Oh and I like your interpretation of the article better. Although I'm not convinced I give the author that much credit.
What’s with the people in the twitter thread taking this as an insult to PHP itself, or a sign that PHP will no longer run on macOS? It’s clearly neither.
It's easier to understand this if you know that the `php` binary bring invoked is the one shipped with the operating system. They've introduced similar messages for other interpreter binaries. I think the intent here is to say "relying on this copy of PHP is not recommended", or maybe "shipping a standalone PHP script to end users is not recommended".
Yeah, like, pretend you're looking at a message in a FreeBSD base system's documentation or something. They're just saying "don't write new shit that relies on macOS system PHP, because it's going away"—it is... not recommended!
As pointed out in the thread, it says the same thing for Python2 (though only if you run it bare for some reason, not with --version, and obviously only if you're invoking the system Python2, not something from e.g. Homebrew) so it seems to just be the message they use for anything that's deprecated and expected to vanish from macOS installations in the future. I bet the same message is used a bunch of other places.
I'd be kind of horrified if anyone's writing PHP on a mac that is not targeting the system's PHP specifically, but is using it. You want whatever version's gonna be on your deployment target, not what happens to ship with your OS installation. Included scripting languages are there so you can write scripts targeting the OS, not develop with them generally. You could, but it's not what most people are going to want.
