Hard to respect vague laws. Apple can't read the regulators' minds and figure out their interpretations, or instantly pivot when regulators change their minds.
You don't need to read minds to know that abusing your dominant market position in one market to disadvantage your competitors in a different market (advertising) has a very high likelihood of breaking competition rules. That's a textbook example of anti-competitive behavior.
When did they change their minds, can you provide a link to a previous regulatory decision which approved this behavior?
All laws are inherently vague. Some actions are clearly legal and some are clearly illegal. Between them, there is a gray zone, where it can be impossible to say in advance what's legal and what isn't.
If you are an amoral profit maximizer, like the average publicly traded company, it's often rational to take risks by entering the gray zone. Sometimes nobody cares that you do that. Sometimes you manage to get a favorable court ruling. And sometimes the expected gains outweigh the eventual fines.
It's almost always easy to comply with the laws by playing it safe. But shareholders don't like that.
Good introduction, sad that it's needed. I've written hundreds of schemas and massive meta schemas and used most of the 2020-12 spec. I still struggle to navigate and use json-schema.org documentation to look up simple information.
JSON Schema could get more traction if its homepage was oriented more towards users instead of implementors.
The JSON Schema community would LOVE some more detailed feedback on this.
We would ideally like to do that in our slack or via a GitHub Discussion. Can you reach either of those OK? Please ping/mention me, same username.
The author may be unduly harsh on her father. He got to be publicly married and have a private gay life. He didn't have to live with his wife much. He liked the idea of having a daughter.
Given the hand he was dealt it's a pretty good outcome for himself. Grossly selfish, but not a waste for himself.
Some don’t fully understand that the universe does not owe you any camaraderie in your affairs. Not even a small mouse to talk to. Many live the same paths we live entirely alone. While life took from her a real romance, it did not take from her partnership. Friends along your travels is not guaranteed, neither are best friends, or the bestest of best friends. Make do, seriously.
Yup, though often will deny it if it comes out. The ‘subconscious’ part is not often fully unknown forever, even if it may be uncouth to acknowledge such awareness.
This, I do think parents have a right to secrecy. Kids don't have to know everything.
Even the idea that our partners/spouses/SO should know everything about us is waaaay too extreme. I think that as long as we love and don't hurt each others and we respect the rules we set between each others it is ok to keep some things secrets.
From what I understand from the author's post, the whole marriage was a big lie to begin with so it is not like authors parents really loved each others. While we can criticize his father for not accepting divorce and thus allowing his mother to rebuild a life, we can hardly call him cheating. And I don't think kids have a right to know everything. I know my parents have had at least one major crisis when I was a kid without knowing the specifics but I have no right nor need to know why. It was between them.
A lot of couples only stay married because it is easier from an organisationnal, social and economic point of view than divorcing anyway.
> The author may be unduly harsh on her father. He got to be publicly married and have a private gay life.
If his wife had been content in a low-intimacy marriage, then that would be one thing. Some people are -- they have security, they have children, they have approval of their family, they're fine.
But his wife wasn't -- she wanted to end the marriage, to try to find romantic, sexual, and relational intimacy elsewhere. And he actively guilt-tripped her into staying with him, multiple times.
He got to experience romantic and sexual intimacy the way he wanted, while preventing his wife from doing the same. He stole decades of the prime of her life from her. There is simply no justification for that.
Sometimes people use "waste" in the sense of "spent selfishly/frivolously." I enjoy evenings spent with prestige television and a tub of ice cream but, past a certain point, it's definitely a waste of time, especially if I have commitments to other people.
I'm undecided if privatisation was a failure. I don't know the counterfactual scenario well enough. The article paints a picture that British Rail was doing just fine, making all capital investments necessary, and at low taxpayer cost. I'm somewhat skeptical that it would continue like that for 30 years. Any better analysis?
I can confirm. Russel group universities will grant masters degrees to people who do not show up for lectures, do not possess functional English, and do not perform the coursework. The exams are dumbed down to ensure a high pass rate. Everyone understands their job and pay depends on the international student fees.
I'm ok with saying that Open Source is now widely understood to mean what the OSI says, that's just a function of how language evolves. But we don't need to re-write history to get there.
Open Source isn't a brand, it isn't a trademark, it was hijacked by OSI to enforce their specific interpretation of a phrase that was already in use. OSI wasn't founded until 1998, over a decade after the term open source software became popular and was used throughout the unix and linux communities and in businesses such as Caldera. Before OSI came up with the OSD many creators of open source software had non-compete clauses in the licence.
"Open Source software" was never a popular term before the OSI promoted it. "Open Source software" is a reworking of the original term "Free software" to be more palatable to businesses. The Open Source Definition is very similar to the older Free Software Definition and virtually all software qualifies as either both or neither.
Likewise I feel like it only became "the common understanding" due to pushing within the past decade. Before that "the common understanding" was what people are only now calling "source available" - which I don't think I'd heard of before just a couple years ago.
This could have been some custom cdk constructs. Then at least you can plug in SQS / SNS / DynamoDB / CW / IAM all in one solution. Flightcontrol doesn't seem to offer these.
I’ve been getting great mileage out of service catalog products. They’re a great middle ground between custom CDK and in-house PaaS. You can even use them as CloudFormation resources so they compose well and users are agnostic to which CDK language (or Terraform even!) that is used to write them. I’m currently experimenting with using them to expose terraform modules as CDK constructs.
Oh interesting, what was your experience with it, out of curiosity?
For my part, there was some initial friction making it usable from the publisher perspective but haven’t really had issues using it from the consumer side.
Anti-meritocracy was in in some CoCs, arguing in its favour was a reason for exclusion from an event / project. Even if the argument happened somewhere else on the internet and not in the project.
Whenever I see someone dying on the hill of fighting for 'meritocracy', in the words of another poster in this subthread, I have found them to be:
> ...a zealot about their cause. Deflecting and uncompromising, very unagreeable. They would be the last persons to know how to make a community comfy.
... And typically with a giant chip on their shoulder. The real world's a little bit more complicated than the spherical cows that the near-religious faith in it requires.
It highly depends on what you understand that word to mean. At first it was just meant to to pronounce fairness. Nothing more to it. It was used in a context to explicitly disregard who people are and focus on what they do.
And of course it wasn't meant as an instruction manual for how to run a society. It was quite explicitly a message that you are not judged by who you are. That is it, there is no ideology, there is no grand idea. That is media garbage that filled your head with a phantom.
And honestly, that did a much better job than most COC I read.
I'm not sure how your comment is relevant. No one is fighting for meritocracy here. Only providing the requested information about a case where CoC pushed a specific political view and excluded others.
The EU did put in regulations, but they did the opposite and essentially mandated DRM. They want to prevent owners from turning off nanny devices or overriding pollution controls.
reply