We are talking about the average profit and risk without knowing the difference in default or move out, vacancy etc. I would think people with housing options would be a higher risk than people without housing options...ie they can afford to just leave if they want to. A person with limited housing options will go without things being fixed right away and can't necessarily afford to defend themselves in court or to just move out.
This is a dumb question. But, where did the data come from used to draw up the conclusion that landlords make more profit on average from poorer neighborhoods?
I had Bragi Dash headphones and took them back within 24 hours. The set up took me like 4 hours. Then the sound quality was so terrible it made my head spin....the sound quality was noticeably worse than even my earpods at the time. Also you had to have your phone in your right pocket otherwise you'd lose the connection. Walk three feet away and also lose connection.
The reviews are not great for Bragi Dash headphones at that time either. I though people were just hating but it turns out the reviews were accurate in this case.
They contribute to specific open source projects with a long-term view to undercutting other open source projects that are more independent of Apple. That is far from being "nice" or "contributing back".
Have you heard of "dumping"? What Apple does in its FOSS contributions is a similar thing - pour a ton of developer resources into critical FOSS projects so that they eventually control the development process and claim they are "contributing to open source", but in the end everyone that depends on these projects have to follow the direction that they set. LLVM/Clang is perhaps one exception, but even the Apple parts of that project's history have very obvious goals of undermining GCC since they hate the GPL's guts, counterbalanced by the legitimate need for a FOSS competitor to GCC that attracts enough non-Apple influence in the LLVM/Clang project to balance out the Apple influence.
Apple has no grand plans to dominate open source, that's silly. All of Apple's OSS contributions can be easily understood as solving Apple's needs.
Apple's LLVM involvement is not driven by spite towards the GPL; Apple simply needed a compiler that was compatible with their business model. Likewise they started WebKit so as not to be dependent on MS for a browser, and Swift because they wanted a successor to aging ObjC.
That's very innocent and naive of you to believe, though of course it's easy to write off any corporate misbehaviour as "solving business needs".
Steve Jobs originally tried to keep the ObjC compiler frontend to GCC proprietary but was forced to open source it due to GPL requirements. Needless to say he hated the GPL ever since that episode and of course jumped on the opportunity to fund a competitor with a non-copyleft license.
Lots of companies hate the GPL. It’s nowhere exclusive to Apple. So what? They don’t have to align with your vision of what open source should be like. What’s wrong with the idea of playing in a different sandbox with a different set of rules if the rules in your current sandbox aren’t ideal? Are you suggesting that we should shame companies who don’t want to deal with GPL-licenses code?
Huh? I totally agree that the app store is a monopoly and leveraging the iOS app store to pressure spotify (a competitor to apple music) is anticompetitive.
But I'm very confused how you're twisting Apple's huge contribution toward LLVM and Webkit over the years into some evil act. Even if all you want is for GCC to be the best compiler it can be, work on LLVM has contributed to that goal by raising the bar. Predictably, GCC has gotten a lot better in the past decade or so. And I'm sure competition from LLVM has helped, just like how browser performance improved remarkably across the board when Chrome first came out. And Android's UI got way better after the iPhone was first released. (It used to be awful). Competition raises all boats; and consumers benefit when that happens.
Who exactly do you imagine is hurt by Apple's open source contributions to LLVM? If clang dethrones gcc it will be because llvm gives developers what we want - a faster compiler, faster executables, better IDE support or something else. My life is made measurably better by these things. Getting all that for free? Hallelujah.
If you don't like the direction Apple (and others) set for an opensource project you care about, you're free to build your own community around a fork. Thats what you would have to do anyway if you want a project to succeed without Apple's support.
What do you want? Great, free software? You've got it. The freedom to change that software however you want? Fork away, brave coder. The ability to sell software based on your changes? Go right ahead.
So where does that anger come from? How is anyone worse off?
> But I'm very confused how you're twisting Apple's huge contribution toward LLVM and Webkit over the years into some evil act.
I'm not twisting anything into an evil act, read my words more closely.
Some of Apple's contributions to open source have been beneficial to the rest of us, because there are competitors to keep them in check in those areas they chose to do open source in.
You should have no doubt that, had those other competitors not existed, Apple's open source contributions would have been used to push a monopolistic advantage over other projects and organisations, and passed it off as "meeting their business needs".
They do not do open source out of any principle of generosity or co-operation with other projects, and much of their ecosystem is legally and technically hostile to supporting FOSS the "proper way". For example it is impossible to properly supply a GPL binary on an iPhone because in general you do not have the ability to install arbitrarily-modified versions of it, a very fundamental principle of the standard definition of Free Open Source Software.
Also I'm not sure why you cite Android vs iPhone since near-everything about an iPhone is proprietary.
What areas are there no competitors, in the space of things they opensource? LLVM has GCC. Webkit has (amongst others) blink. Darwin has Linux. FoundationDB has dozens of great competitors.
And even in the absence of competitors, how is new permissively licensed opensource software a bad thing? How, exactly do you weaponise opensourcing decent software which has no competitors? Can you give some examples?
Every company uses and contributes open source if they believe there is a business case for it. No one is immune from that fact.
I’m sorry but the whole open source claim is weak because the musicians aren’t releasing their product as free to use by anyone. Why would you otherwise need anti piracy measures like Spotify if the music was free to use to begin with?
Forget open source - Apple rips off ideas from devs-and subsequently dumpstering their apps coz why buy an enhancement when your device does it already?- on their platform so commonly there is even a term for it - getting "sherlocked"
This is not exclusive to Apple. Software included in the default MS Windows installation was a huge concern, too. MS killed a company or two back in the day when they piled on extras in Windows that these other companies were selling for profit. And I am certain that Google killed a few 3rd party apps by integrating similar features in Android nor their apps.
Spotify literally sued artists and musicians because they didnt agree with a court ordered fee increase...but Apples hypocritical on this issue somehow.
Spotify also uses Apples infrastructure and marketing tools for its app. I dont think Ive seen any app creator up on stage at Apple events more than Spotify. Its not like Spotify will use Apples tools and ecosystem one time then stop. Its ongoing and 15% is reasonable. Apple literally changed the app store rules to accomodate Spotify and everyone knows it.
I will say that I think Spotify should be able to advertise payment outside the app.
Don't forget that it is a symbiotic environment. Spotify needs to be on the Apple ecosystem as it is massive and Apple needs to have Spotify in its ecosystem because that's what the users want.
As for payments, they all follow the same scheme more or less and redistribute about 70% of the revenue to the rightholders. If the services are priced the same, it's exactly the same for artists.
The big difference is that Spotify has a permanent free tier, which admittedly makes less money short term, but it is driving acquisition of premium users faster than any other methods. The alternative being no revenue, it's just fine.
Apple on the same topic doesn't care about razor thin margins on this product, or even losses. They are a hardware vendor, so as long as they still sell their devices, they will be fine.
Well, why don't Apple Music pay its "fair share" of 15%~30% to Google since it's hosted on Google Play? They are also using Google's tools and ecosystem.
This reads like you seized one sentence and stopped reading because you didnt like what was said so dismissed the whole article. Thats not fair IMO. I read the whole thing and the article uses the first sentences to set the backdrop for his argument that older engineers and programmers are forced into early retirement and companies in tech world and outside of it make rookie mistakes that could be avoided by treating engineering as a life long profession.
Alternating between complaints about White overrepresentation that aren't even true and politically correct terminology like "People of Color" and the entire article being a love letter to an underrepresented group is just jarring. It makes me wonder about how informed the author is about tech if he thinks Whites are overrepresented generally. There's either a lack of accuracy or moral consistency. Why the hell is the author even bring up his poorly informed opinions on racial topics in an article about ageism anyways?
Anyways the article as a whole is heavy on anecdote and low on data & facts. There is an emphasis on outcome metrics but the author doesn't bother to examine any data on productivity vs age.
The problem with your argument is that there are other diversity initiatives in the programming world which are mainly gender and race focused. That is undeniably true. There hasnt been the same thing at the same scale for older programmers. In fact there have been many articles on this very forum about how many tech companies filter out older engineers when searching for talent. Its not the first time this topic has been brought up. IBM was actively phasing out older workers and long term workers. Lets not act like data isnt there to support the claim even if it is just anecdotal.
I didn't really see anything substantiating a claim that eg 30 years engineering experience in tech is more valuable than say 20. It was just an assumption.
Umm just wanted to note one of my friends started a meetup group for over 40 coders in NYC. I'll update this post with the link to the meetup. I'm gonna contact him now.
I heavily prefer cashless stores. For me it's all about the convenience. Also I am better able to track my purchases and spending habits. Additionally, I like eat in a clean environment if I can. I don't want to eat where it stinks to the high heavens or is dirty. It is a preference. There is nothing stopping homeless people from going cashless by simply buying a AMX card at walgreens with cash already on it.
How is a cashless store more convenient and help you better track your purchase, compared with a store that accepts both cash and cards? You're setting up a false cashless vs cardless dichotomy.
> Additionally, I like eat in a clean environment if I can. I don't want to eat where it stinks to the high heavens or is dirty. It is a preference. There is nothing stopping homeless people from going cashless by simply buying a AMX card at walgreens with cash already on it.
These two arguments are at odds. Cash is not what makes stores stink or get dirty; what you're saying is that you prefer stores without people you associate with stink, ie., homeless. But if the homeless could "simply" get a card, cashless stores wouldn't have that advantage.
And the reality is that they can't; prepaid cards have monthly fees, which are only waived in certain cases (e.g. have a monthly direct deposit of over $500).
> Cash is not what makes stores stink or get dirty; what you're saying is that you prefer stores without people you associate with stink, ie., homeless. But if the homeless could "simply" get a card, cashless stores wouldn't have that advantage.
You are reading more into what I stated than what is there. I'm saying I don't care if someone is homeless or not. If they stink in a restaurant or coffee shop I don't want to eat there. That's all I said. I did not link it to the store being cashless or not. You added that in yourself.
Then I simply offered up an alternative to get around the cashless rules. Someone collecting a monthly fee from the cards does not matter as much if it's just going to be spent within the month anyway.
Many businesses have cashless as a theft prevention measure. It's only mildly more difficult for people to do transactions there if it's more difficult at all. When I was poor I preferred cashless. Nothing has changed since I'm less poor now than I was before. With cards I have recourse. With cash I have zero recourse if something is stolen or there is fraud.
