I am speaking as a user of the product and offering feedback - the whole point behind Tor is to protect your anonymity and that's hard to do when the browser itself is leaking your IP (and other data) to some service you don't even care about. At best, such kind of integrated services should be opt-in only by default. (Note that Firefox services are now opt-in too in Tor).
For all those of you who crib about forced capitalisation of certain keywords and use of BEGIN ... END in Oberon, see for yourself how it improves the usability of reading the code, even without pretty colour formatting - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rochus-keller/OberonSystem... ... each block of code can be easily identified for analysis.
Also, while it wasn't initially done on the environment, automatic formating can take care of it, capitalizing keywords automatically, or on save, no need to overuse the shift key.
Wealth without work.
Pleasure without conscience.
Knowledge without character.
Commerce without morality.
Science without humanity.
Religion without sacrifice.
Politics without principle.
Commerce Without Morality:
As in wealth without work we indulge in commerce without morality to make more money by any means possible. Price gouging, palming off inferior products, cheating and making false claims are a few of the obvious ways in which we indulge in commerce without morality. There are also thousands of other ways in which we do immoral or unethical business. When profit-making becomes the most important aspect of business, morals and ethics usually go overboard. We cut benefits and even salaries of employees. If possible we employ "slave" labour, like the sweat shops and migrant farm workers in New York and California where workers are thoroughly exploited. Profit supersedes the needs of people. When business is unable to deal with labour it begins to mechanize. Mechanization, it is claimed, increases efficiency, but in reality it is instituted simply to make more money. Alternate jobs may be created for a few. Others will fall by the wayside and languish. Who cares? People don't matter, profits do. In more sophisticated language what we are really saying is that those who cannot keep up with the technological changes and exigencies of the times do not deserve to live--a concept on which Hitler built the Nazi Party. If society does not care for such people, can we blame them if they become criminals?
No. BigTech has now started playing the same game as most of the corporate run media around the world - cater to the whims of those in power, political ideology be damned. Right-wing government in power - sure we'll spread the hate for you and censor the voice of the opposition and minorities. Left-wing in power - sure, we'll give prominence to your "liberal" ideas and help in suppressing any criticism against it.
On a slightly different note, there is an "alternative medicine" stream popular among the right- in India called urine therapy. Some advocates of it suggest cow urine and some for drinking their own urine. The most famous and vocal advocate for drinking your own urine was the former Prime Minister of India, Morarji Desai.
It is intentional and meant to dissuade users from treating HN as a content publication platform. HN seeks to be an aggregator of quality links (on specific subjects) + topical discussions on the linked subjects. They don't want to degenerate into a Linked-In (or similar) type network which encourages users to create original posts on their platform.
> then a competitor would have stomped google search into the dust already
You'd think so, but they can't. Forget about Google's brand power due to which every internet user is hard-wired to turn to it when searching. The scale of users they have gives them a monopoly that allows them to collect a vast amount of data that no competitor can match. Without an quivalent amount of data, they just can't improve their engines. A simple example is the search queries - the keywords you use to search for data. I suspect Google gets roughly 1000 new search queries to every 1 new query their competitor gets. So Google has 1000+ new data points to optimise their search engine, where as a competitor is constrained due to the lack of similar data. That is why the competitors offer a poorer search experience with new queries. Which makes users stop using it and adds to woes of the non-Google search engine.
The only fix to this is to recognize Google search engine as a monopoly, and force it to share its data with other competitors till they reach a certain level of threshold of "competitiveness". (Ofcourse, the biggest issue with this approach is the user privacy problem).
Ah, but you forget the license agreement or definitely the privacy policy that changes with every OS upgrade. By doing forced OS upgrades, Apple is essentially forcing new ToS and privacy policy updates on you too.
They announce the OS version with every new hardware release. So it is indeed a criteria that consumers use to decide to purchase. And not everybody automatically upgrades to a new OS version.
