earthnail

New versions of Swift are truly cross-platform. We support iOS, iPadOS, MacOS, HomeOS, VisionOS, WatchOS as well as BodyOS, BrainOS and iThinkOS.

To help developers focus on the future, Swift 9 drops support for deprecated platforms such as Linux, Windows and the web.

/s

I'm actually a Swift developer; it's a great language, but I'm also married to the Apple ecosystem and wouldn't choose it outside of it.

This. Convenience always trumps security. "I need two numbers in my password? My birthyear will do."

Care to explain why Mistral is an embarrassment?

That depends on how you look at it. These front pages are made in a certain way that tells me "low level engineer".

I could make other examples: websites of online shops that have been around for a while and that are just medium-sized, local businesses, tend to look much worse than your average influencer webshop. But the medium-sized local business tends to have the much better value for money ratio, and I can tell it from their website.

Design says something. AI is trying to imitate that very thing that a specific design used to tell you, and that imitation annoys people, rightfully so. That has little to do with AI per se and everything with the immitation the human behind it does.

Landing pages are always a proxy for quality. Quality in implementation, quality in domain knowledge, in communication…

At a time when building such a page was hard, it communicated quality in implementation. Now it fakes that, and that is deceptive and therefore met with negative reviews reaction.

I find it completely logical.

It’s a lot of work to collect fingerprints off plates. You can build surveillance that way but it scales terribly.

On the web you can do that much more efficiently. That scares people.

As in any defense/offense situation, it’s all about balance.

I can see that this refresh makes sense on Windows, but on MacOS it feels like a step backwards.

I would bet that this is different for cars made in the last 3-4 years. More and more stats from the automobile clubs are rolling in that show that electric vehicles last much longer, because they have less moving parts, and that batteries last much longer than expected.

So as of today, I’d certainly buy electric if I was worried about depreciation.

They offered the patent to all the American synth companies, and they all declined. Multiplying sounds just sounded too ridiculous.

Then came Yamaha, who saw its potential, and made a fortune with it. So did Stanford. That patent became the second most successful patent Stanford ever had until it expired in 1996 (by now obv the university has had way more financially successful patents).

It secured Chowning his tenure; the university probably wouldn’t have prolonged it otherwise. Quite an incredible story the whole thing.

Well, the reason we introduced it is because we realised it’s a lot of work to make these - be that paint, write, collect, curate - someone needs to do it and we need to incentivise people in our society to do it.

Maybe these incentives weren’t perfect. If we throw all of this away, we’re back at the original problem.

You imply that there was no original problem to be solved; I think that’s naive.

You forgot the 30% revenue share the App Stores take.

Imagine you're the mayor. You want to hire companies to build prime housing and affordable housing. Every company only wants to build prime housing, because that's where the money is. If you only give out contracts like that, basically nobody will apply to build affordable housing.

You're not dumb, of course, so your next step is to say, "if I give you the contract to build prime housing, you also must build affordable housing". That's not ideal for the developer, because the time spent on building affordable housing is time they don't spend on stuff where they make proper money, but at least they can make some money. They agree to take the deal. You think, problem solved, but turns out the developer outsmarts you: they structure the company in a way that they can chicken out of building the affordable housing. In real estate, it's very common to have every building project be its own limited liability company so that one failed project doesn't influence the others. In this case, you put the affordable and the luxury housing together in one Ltd, build the luxury housing, extract the profits by moving them to the parent company and then declare your Ltd bankrupt, meaning they unfortunately can no longer build the affordable housing.

As a mayor, you observe how you're being cheated, you get real angry but the walk through the courts is too slow, and your voters demand action now. Realistically, you do the court route in the background, but you learned your lesson and now you tell the developer "before I give you a high margin luxury contract, you must have completed affordable housing first".

Alternatively, you mix the buildout into the same building so that you cannot open the luxury flats/office space without having completed the affordable part. Either way, affordable first, luxury second.

That is basically the story of the London property market.

It turned into a luxury place because that's where the highest margins in construction are. Every developer wants to build high margin houses, nobody wants to build low margin houses.

City development must cater to all its inhabitants, and if you have a prime estate like the Battersea Power Station, it's a failure, from the city's POV, if you burn that only on high margin development. From a negotiation standpoint, the city negotiated badly here. The city has to accommodate the needs of less wealthy inhabitants in other means now, but without the negotiation leverage that a high margin property can provide.

If you view it like this, the complaints "only luxury flats" are pretty rational. The city negotiated badly.

We can't wait to see how concerts will look like.