I imagine it's referring to anonymous VPN traffic through providers like Mullvad. Your internet traffic through your corp VPN is likely already at Orwellian-levels of surveillance, and that traffic can at least be tracked back to a asingle identifiable business.
Would a child have access to a paid VPN like Mullvad anyway, I wonder.
If they ban OpenVPN and WireGuard through what I can only think is something akin to the great firewall of China, then what is the next step, making ssh -D unlawful?
Maybe encryption too? Maybe they need to ban booting Linux and filter access to open source software as well? Running unsigned code? Might as well just shut down the internet.
> Would a child have access to a paid VPN like Mullvad anyway, I wonder.
Sure. Why not? Paid VPNs are cheap to use, and kids are smart.
A kid who already has a computer to use can turn a relatively large amount of electricity into a relatively small amount of crypto, and can do so very informally. It's usually a money-losing operation, but that matters less when a person is (say) 14 and someone else pays the electric bill: Out of sight, out of mind.
After that: Simply use the proceeds to pay for something like Mullvad or AirVPN (they accept crypto payments just fine).
It's been quite a long time since I was 14 and it was a very different world back then, but I don't think I would have had any trouble connecting these dots at that age.
(And indeed, that's how I used to pay for my own VPN service as a grown adult back when using those things was a lot less common. Rather than potentially draw unwanted interest from my bank by making international payments, I'd just mine some crypto to cover the VPN, and pay the electric bill. It wasn't strictly anonymous or untraceable or anything like that, but it did help cover the tracks that I cared about covering.)
I'd say Mullvad is on the more accessible side, since a Mullvad subscription can be obtained through a relatively small amount of cash. All you need is a few dollars and the ability to mail a letter with a few bucks to Europe.
Wisconsin is a state that's been looking at banning VPNs[1]. And they also apply laws to "companies commonly known to provide VPN services" - which makes me wonder how far that goes. Because technically I could get a free AWS instance, spin up Tailscale on it, and I have a VPN. Is AWS a VPN company since they certainly host servers that are used for VPNs? Who knows!
The whole point is that there's a legal system that allows a plaintiff to make an argument that there was negligence at play, and OP outlined a logical list of examples of how it could be argued up to the government itself being negligent for zoning. It's the job of the legal system to remove the ambiguity of "seemed", particularly in the context of tort and compensation.
This example just happens to be less obvious than a construction company building a house or bridge that collapses and kills people, and most cases in front of a court are equally ambiguous.
The comment about the ad wasn't about the ad istelf. It was an apple ad for an apple service, so they didn't make any money at all on the ad. The remark was about the service Apple was pushing, and just how intrusively.
But the comment OP was replying to was about their ad services and what incentive the company has to operate in good faith or risk impacting sales to the majority of their business.
Correct, and didn’t sell your data to do it. I’m okay with that. If I trust Apple with basically my life stored on their phone and in their cloud, and processing payments for me, and filtering my email, and spoofing my mac address on networks (and,and,and), it seems foolish to be worried about them knowing what tv shows I like to watch at night too. At least to me. It’s gonna be a sad day when Tim leaves and user privacy isn’t a company focus anymore.
Services are 25% and are the only one growing/they can grow - that means all focus is going to be on expanding that revenue = enshitification.
Hardware is now purely a way to get you on to the app store - which is why iOS is so locked down and iPad has a MacBook level processor with toy OS.
If you stop looking at the marketing speak and look at it from a stock owner perspective all the user hostile moves Apple is double speaking into security and UX actually make a lot more sense.
Hardware is still 3x the revenue of services, and though it has a lower margin is the bulk of the companies profit. Apple was 3% of the PC market in 2010 and is 10% today, while Android is 75% of the global cellphone market - there's plenty of room for growth in hardware... if you stop looking at the marketing speak, whatever that means.
I don’t see how this really changes the underlying problem of the device pays on you and then they sell that information to the highest bidder? I’m not reaching for a financial report to fix that.
Apple doesn't sell information, they sell access to eyeballs. Quite a big difference. The whole point of first OPs point was that ad revenues to Apple are not worth hurting the other parts of their business built around privacy. Pointing out that Apple shows ads for owned services within their own OS isn't a case otherwise.
Apple absolutely does allow wholesale data harvesting by turning a blind eye to apps that straight up embed spyware SDKs.
This isn’t some hypothetical or abstract scenario, it’s a real life multi billion dollar a year industry that Apple allows on their devices.
You can argue that this is not the same thing as the native ad platform that they run and I’d agree but it’s also a distinction without a meaningful difference.
All you've done is move the goal posts, and it's not even ads related. I'm not entirely certain what you're arguing, other than having some feelings about Apple.
Except honorary doctorates are awards, not academic qualifications. Influence or not he didn't do the work at those institutions, defending a dissertation, that would earn him the title, regardless of his contributions. That many of these awards are from non-US universities doesn't change that they're a form of marketing - these awards were not given out of the goodness of someones heart, but because these businesses wanted something out of the relationship by associating with his name.
Facebook had started bifurcating API endpoints to support iOS vs Android vs Web, and overtime a large number of OS-specific endpoints evolved. A big part of their initial GraphQL marketing was to solve for this problem specifically.
> ... has a debug allocator that maintains memory safety in the face of use-after-free and double-free
which is probably true (in that it's not possible to violate memory safety on the debug allocator, although it's still a strong claim). But beyond that there isn't really any current marketing for Zig claiming safety, beyond a heading in an overview of "Performance and Safety: Choose Two".
It is intended for release builds. The ReleaseSafe target will keep the checks. ReleaseFast and ReleaseSmall will remove the checks, but those aren't the recommended release modes for general software. Only for when performance or size are critical.
The last iced release was September 2024, more than a year ago. I imagine they had constraints that made it impossible to wait for upstream patches to be merged (if at all) and it was simply more tenable to fork and worry about merging later.
reply