Yeah, google will return something for “covid is a hoax” as well, that doesn’t constitute a proof.
Also, from your very own article: “Broadly speaking, it collects a lot less information than Google or Facebook and has backed up its claims that it is privacy-focused”
Bullshit - what “research”? Apple is in no way comparable to goddamn Google and Facebook here. Their ad sector is pretty much “display my app in the AppStore search if they search for similar things” and things like that, that only uses the actual search term, and very basic stuff about the user. They can make relatively much money on that, because they artificially own the whole “Apple market”, so they don’t have any competition there. They don’t fingerprint you across the whole internet, that’s for sure.
No, it is usb-c - usb-c, like literally every phone produced in the last few years.
Apple actually already sort of have it — you can go to settings and check whether any repairs/tampering happened on your device. That is I believe a correct approach - you can always check after a repair/second hand buy whether their claims are true, yet it is maximally usable.
Now try to sign a PDF
Meh, I have been using linux desktop exclusively for a decade now, and I have to disagree. It… sorta works, but it has definitely many many shortcomings and edge cases where it just shits itself completely — that is, the userspace. The kernel itself is rock solid.
You do realize that the whole of meaningful architecture we have builds on, and often gives way for legacy ones? XWayland is made by Wayland, because obviously not every software will port overnight or ever. That’s a positive thing.
It’s almost like the linux community is not controlled by a dictator like Apple, where they can just say “we are using this API from next version, if you wanna work, port”. Wayland required a critical mass before it actually started flying - but it definitely flies now.
How is it privacy friendly? Not trying to troll of anything, but people literally share all their likes/dislikes plainly with everyone, and deletes don’t have to actually be executed on other servers.
Or change copy to command+c… I’m gonna be honest, OSX is right here. And quite strangely it is very hard to customize your linux to imitate that.
Or change copy to command+c… I’m gonna be honest, OSX is right here. And quite strangely it is very hard to customize your linux to imitate that.
It comes by default on plenty of distros and people don’t even notice the change.
In the meanwhile, nvidia doesn’t support the linux kernel itself (though it is changing slowly) that’s why it can’t support wayland.
That’s much easier grounds then… checks notes… a modern laptop straight from the factory.
Security doesn’t work like that and I find it important to share the insecure nature of most linux distros with many people, hopefully to make it improve one day.
Currently a make install can do literally anything to your computer besides installing a video card driver (as per the old xkcd comic) and sure there is firejail… but let’s be honest, how often do you use it? Defaults matter, and thus linux is insecure.
Also, again, how is osx locked down? What’s a concrete thing you can’t do on it?
Package management is the ultimate problem that was previously left unsolved (no, docker just pushes the problem away, doesn’t solve it. That apt install won’t be the same now as it was when you wrote it). Nix is the first thing that actually solves it properly.
Arguably: docker sucks.
They are both UNIXes, that’s quite a lot of similarity and I wouldn’t write it off that fast.
In what way does it limit your freedom? When I first tried OSX I was quite surprised at how customizable it actually is, contrary to all the talk I heard about it.
Macs are actually secure. Not as much as ios, but compared to the general linux userspace, it is like a military establishment vs a homeless tent.
I believe we should have a new word that differentiates between ultra-basic tiny unit tests, and bigger unit tests that are still not integration tests.
E.g. rust and some other newer languages have a way to write basically an inline test for a function — that would constitute my former category. These make sense during development as a reality check. “Yes, this ad hoc stack I need inside this class should have two elements if I push two elems” sort of thing. That implementation may not even be accessible from the outside in case of an OOP language so you can’t even properly test it. Also, these are the ones that should change with the code and removing them is no big deal.
The other kind should work against the public APIs of libs/classes and they should not be rewritten on internal changes at all.
It’s as much a “harm they put in place themselves” as website cookies are - these are technical artifacts that were maliciously used. It is just not arguing in good faith to claim they made it for tracking purposes - it’s like basic software development practice to create some unique IDs, and it has plenty useful roles.