- And how often in practice are terms and conditions attempted to be enforced in the first place? No need to challenge them if you can ignore them
- It looks like Anrhropic has great visibility into what hackers do. Why would it also see what legitimate users do?
- I mean it does make sense though - robo taxis (of one company) are much more homogeneous than any two human drivers could ever be.
- I installed this on Android, and unless iOS experience is massively different, this is not a good example:
- there's no touch feedback (ripple) on many of clickable components. Some that do have it look non-native, inconsistent and sometimes gets stuck
- the search bar on top app bar in `search` tab looks very non-native and non-standard (it's elevated on top of elevated app bar already)
- the lists look iOS-y, especially settings
- the settings list item has weird glitch where it loses background after touching (but not clicking)
- collapsing comments is pretty choppy (on a Samsung S25 so a pretty powerful phone)
- can't swipe down a bottom sheet (with post options/actions)
- it's just not android-y — the navigation is weird, the design is all over the place,
It's not unusable and it's a good tradeoff for a small team I guess. But this is nowhere near the experience a native app can provide, and has lots of small papercuts that would make for at least a slightly frustrating experience. It is a decent app don't get me wrong, but it's clearly not native
- > It stands to reason that Apple wouldn't have developed this feature [liquid glass css property] if they weren't using it. Where? We have no idea. But they must be using it somewhere. The fact that none of us have noticed exactly where suggests that we're interacting with webviews in our daily use of iOS without ever even realising it.
There's some jump from _a property exists_ to _it must be used_, but a massive one from _a property exists_ to _Apple uses it everywhere and we never notice it because they are done well_.
- Maybe this https://blog.jim-nielsen.com/2022/inspecting-web-views-in-ma... and https://www.hackerneue.com/item?id=30648424?
On mobile the webview app experience is crap and it's immediately obvious that an app is not native. Simply nobody asks customers how they like it. The management assumes that as long as nobody complains and the users don't leave in droves, the experience must be impeccable.
- Otoh if, as a human, you use a known (even leaked on the website) password to "bypass the security" in order to "gain access to content you're not authorized to see", I think you'd get in trouble. I'd like if the same logic aplied to bots - implement basic (albeit weak) security and only allow access to humans. This way bots have to _hack you_ to read the content
- I'm sorry but the article seems pretty biased, and doesn't really give any argument for why what happened would be in any way justified. Author keeps adding their own interpretation to Github comments and events, which — just by looking at the contents — are needlessly negative. For example [1] where commit message states
> We've been continuing to backport bugfixs to the 1.7.x series just for Heroku, but unless Heroku joins Ruby Together I don't have enough time available to make sure that continues to happen.
but OP claims it
> was interpreted as leveraging his control over Bundler as a pay-to-play scheme
I'm sorry but not supporting outdated versions of an open-source tool for a business is perfectly reasonable.
Similarly, [2] was again is described as "was interpreted at the time as indicating the feature would be withheld from Bundler because Heroku had failed to pay Ruby Together.". This is not at all how I read it — the comment just says that the open source project has priorities and not all of them can be implemented given the level of funding it has.
These are just two examples, but the article is riddled with wording like "blatant copying", "brazenly hypocritical", "was interpreted as [a bad thing]" etc.
I just feel like reading a clearly lopsided political piece intended to incite negative emotions towards something/someone. There are just enough facts to make it sound fact-based, but enough of author's own feelings and interpretation that I'm not at all convinced.
In fact, towards the end the author even states that there's been ~6 years where nothing of note happened, before the current drama. That seems like a relatively healthy situation?
[1] https://github.com/heroku/heroku-buildpack-ruby/pull/385/com... [2] https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1811#issuecommen...
- Seems like the package has been removed from npm: https://www.npmjs.com/package/postmark-mcp. Which is too bad, because there's no way to verify the claims from the article
- The "postmark-mcp" from the article seems like some random guy's package though, postmark has its own official mcp server as well: https://postmarkapp.com/lp/mcp. It's like installing ublock extension but published by a 'coder3012' account
- > But right now it belongs to the rich people who fund the work on Ruby and Rails. That’s DHH and Lutke (Shopify CEO).
Do you mean "right now" as in _now that they hijacked the Github repositories and locked out the previous owners_, or "right now" as in _for some time now, since they've been funding some Ruby work_?
- > How would you verify that the ported code actually works if you don't port the tests and examples?
Port tests, run them against unported code. Port code, run it against unported tests? That way you also verify that the public api hasn't changed
- I did that — picked a booking, it redirected me to Expedia and showed a $0 rental! But then when I changed my region on the top bar from US to "Rest of Europe", that booking no longer worked. When I then search (on Expedia) for the same location and dates, I get very believable prices (200-300 EUR). When I change the region back to the US and search again directly on Expedia, I see the same scam $0 offer as previously.
I think this supports precisely my point — in EU all the fees are presented such that you can get the service without any hidden costs
- Can you give an example? I just checked a random rental website for France and I got a very clear `From $xx` price and I could — in one step — go to checkout with that exact price by simply not selecting any other options.
Sure you will have upsells but if a price for a service is presented, that should be a final price. You can't tack on "resort fees", the price presented must be inclusive of all the required charges. For example as much as I dislike Booking.com, the price they show for a room includes everything — tax, mandatory cleaning fee and city tax if applicable.
- Ok so it's not "airpods live translation" really, but "ios live translation" and there's no technical reason to limit it to airpods?
- Isn't that an argument for Remarkable? You had the cloud functions for free and you've been grandfathered in. New buyers always knew that they'd need a subscription for that. Seems perfectly fair, even if you dislike the functionality (which is still very optional)
- > developers will have the same freedom to distribute their apps directly to users through sideloading or to use any app store they prefer. We believe this is how an open system should work—by preserving choice while enhancing security for everyone
I guess words don't don't have meaning anymore, how can you claim to have an open system in an announcement about closing it down?
It's also telling that the big supporters of this are apparently corporations and governments. Admittedly I don't know what "Developer's Alliance" is but they don't seem to care about developers very much, and I wouldn't surprised if they were just a "pay us to say what you're doing is good for devs" kind of thing
- Can't agree. While there are some evergreen postings, LinkedIn job applications still landed me a couple of interviews (and much more compared to cold applying on the company website). And then there's recruiters reaching out which landed me even more interviews + my current - genuinely great - job.
- What's the best resource to learn those things in practice? Other than _just trying_ yourself? I'm a senior dev in another area who wants to get into the backend development, but unsurprisingly has limited time to spend on learning a completely new thing,
The other way around — make it clear that the devices are capable of showing ads, and provide instructions on how to opt-in to them (and no cookie-like prompts either)