Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | 3oil3's commentslogin

There were a lot of non-optimal decisions, and statements were out of reality. The macPro is not the best. The M3 slower. A.I. acronym opportunity could have been leveraged differently. A mac is supposed to be comfortable, macOS 26 "Da hoe" initially lacked various elements that were expected. The current state of logs/logging in macOS is a paradise for an adversary but time-hogging for legitimate user. Shareholders use macs, and they trust teams that studied Nokia. New emojis have a relatively inelastic relationship with sales.

Shareholders use macs, and they trust teams that studied Nokia. New emojis have a relatively inelastic relationship with sales.

What does any of this mean?


I’ve tried reading this a few times and it seems like a stream of consciousness word salad?

It lost the formatting, I meant it as a list of what out-of-reality decisions led to. I mean the macPro sux, when the macbookproM3 came out it was slower than the previous mode. I meant that 'Apple-Inteligence' sux, that macOS26 doesn't help working better. That opening console on a fresh macOS can show thousands of entries per second and that entries like "User <private> result: <private>" are not helpful. That what happened to Nokia can happen to Iphones, and finally that listing emojis among top features is yet out-of-reality. And I didnt mention the vision pro because I wanted to make a joke about it, in case someone said I forgot that on my list.

What did you understand? Shareholders use macs -> proportionaly feel the same frustration as other mac users. Trusting teams that studied Nokia -> Nokia was once the leader in mobiles, and quickly fell. Emojis -> how many new emojis were added are usually indicated along the other, top, features.

New emojis motivate people to install security updates.

What a great article! When the author mentionned "showing-off", that's what I thought at first, I mean, most of us have the "why not spend 2 hours trying to figure it out when you can read the manual for 2 minute" kind of mind-set, which is similar to the "why not make it really complex if we can make it simple". But no, it's actually a really smart idea!!

I wonder which model will silently be updated and suddenly start drawing clocks with Audemars-Piguet-level kind of complications.


Ah man, this must be rethorics and you wouldn't lie to a friend close enough to do such a favour, would you? WHo the h is after you guys anyway, to want such level of degraded-internet-speed?

And about 'Warp', is it or is it not a VPN after-all? They mentionned they aren't a VPN, but that they build on wireguard ??


I wouldn't lie even to strangers, and my point was solely about people having little to no sense of security.


Immediatly though of donating > $1.5M to remove that indentation hell.

What do you mean it's in their values?

More seriously, I can only respect someone (natural or legal) who refuses 7 figures for their values, which ever those might be and whether I share them or not.


Many people here have pointed out in response to flagged comments that the decision was legalistic, bureaucratic and self-preserving. I.e., the PSF did not want to enter a territory where it might be forced to repay the grant.

The money was earmarked for PyPI and the refusal did not impact those who have other positions in the PSF. In 2020, when it was politically safe, the PSF made several BLM support statements. There are no statements about people of color in Gaza or extrajudicial killings off the Venezuelan coast in 2025.

Moreover, they got political capital from this action for an organization that was/is severely damaged by the ruthless and libelous leadership. And they prepare for another pendulum swing that might materialize in the 2026 midterms.

All in all, I'm unimpressed.


Just wow.


great example, there are like 50% of people that share yours point of view on the subject (cameras not bad), and another 50% who have the strict opposit opinion (cameras not good).

And each is usually hard to convince otherwise, and many judge the opposit group.

Me I dont care, I just want cheaper bottles of water in airport.


It's not cameras not good, it's face recognition not good. Because face recognition not good.


Face rec can be problematic if used with bad imagery and without proper oversight - agree.

Like all powerful tools it has to be used responsibly.

My point is merely that we are all tracked by other means that affect our life in much deeper and profound ways.

..like for example purchase history, cell phone location, internet use etc bought and sold by private corporations, with little to no oversight.


Cameras are mostly a threat to people that have to use burner phones and crypto at work.

If you want privacy, close your bank account, throw away your phone, use cash, don't own property, quit your day job etc etc

Worrying about cameras is naive at best.


It's interesting how we can all have such opposit judgments while sharing roughly the same education/experiences, and that it usually falls into a 50/50 share. I think an automated system to identify criminals in the most likely 'points of exit' is quite remarkable. I know that throughout history government have not really been so gentle, but that's an anoher topic -we get the governments we deserve. On the other hand, it would be nice to have something in return, like no more check-ins or something, and for the love of all that is love, maybe lessen this silly security check - take off my shoes? check my bag with a $50000 mass spectrometer to see if if there is powder? have any of these machine ever detected something anywhere in the world? How about less hypocrisy and tell us about that super elastic relation between 'time spent' and '$ spent" is? I disgressed, but that's what annoys me, that a place where people are arbitrarly prohibited from bringing water, has criminally-inflated prices for a bottle of water -even if I'v been blessed so that I have them for free in the lounge. That's what I think is a problem. Not cameras.


I travelled from Australia to Malaysia to Canada (with a stopover in Dubai), and all the time I had 2 1/2 bottles of water (probably 1.5 litres) in my carry-on bag that I had forgotten. Something about a 46-hour journey, perhaps.

I went through 8 security gates, and no one ever stopped or questioned me about the water. And when I found it at my destination, I threw it out.


Airports in UK have started lifting the fluid limits, the new X-ray machines are much better at determining the contents.

So as airports upgrade those rules may finally be getting obsoleted.


Can't happen soon enough. My wife tried to bring home a nice little bottle of scotch from Edinburgh and security confiscated because they could not convince themselves that 10 dL <= 100 mL. And further, that since the bottle capacity was cast into the glass and not printed on the paper label, it was possible that the actual content was greater than 100 mL. When my wife tried to question the logic of that reasoning, the lead security guy more or less threatened to fuck over our entire trip home by detaining us for a while.

They did offer to ship the bottle to us at our expense, but the shipping fee was over a hundred pounds and it was cheaper to buy a much larger bottle of the same stuff from an importer.

I hope some day we can dispense with the security theater.


Hey man. 10dL = 1L


Yeah, I don't do metric by default, so I sometimes mixup the exact conversions, especially from memory. It was certainly cL, not dL. It was a bottle of this, which is not special, but a novelty souvenir my wife wanted to bring home: https://stagsbreath.co.uk/products/stags-breath-liqueur-10cl

She ended up just having a 70 cL bottle shipped to us and we wrote off the one stolen at Heathrow.


Plot twist: it was 10 deka-liters! (;->


That is good news!


Glad to see so many airports focusing on real threats instead of security theatre!


Weren't you thirsty, mate?


I think they come to that conclusion with that segregation thing? Besides that, all nonsense. We need the best for the job, the best we can have. Just the best, with no regards to anything else but the abilities to fulfil the job and all around it. Instead of non-sense of choosing someone based on racial, etnic, religous, etc... it goes both way. Instead of that, put more teachers in schools, provide free books/uniforms/utilities. Fix that damn airco in that kindergarden class. Better what makes better.


> We need the best for the job

I'm curious why you say that, since we've arguably been managing without "the best for the job" for centuries, anytime the best was a woman or a minority.


Because we must do better than our ancestors, we have no escuses, whereas e.g. 1880 gobal ileteracy rate > 80%. More comfortable schools with less pupils per 1 teacher we need, fix the issue, not give painkillers.


We think we want the best, and then at hiring time we look for "culture fit", or hire people we already know, or our relatives instead. Then we wonder why everybody is just like us.


Yep, you'r 100% right, it reminds me I once read that of all given jobs offers, 50% would be taken by someone who got introduced internally. Out of personal exeperience as employer, that so was decided by me because it was filling the need instantly. And out of those personal experiences, bad employees brought bad recruits, good employees brought good recruits. Unknown recruits? half good, half bad. Ironically chiraldic.


What I wanted to show was the 'custom paper size', but I must have done something and the title got truncated. It's not really a graphic, it's just the entire convo as one long age.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: