The implicit assumption that Apple Pay is more secure is the problem here. If it is really about security or cohesive experience, then Apple should have a transparent process for approving "secure" payment methods for any vendors and allow the user to set any arbitrary default payment method in the cohesive style while putting other methods (especially Apply Pay for example in the non-cohesive style).
A cohesive experience is more than just the UI skin. It’s also about the expectation that the payments work. If every app starts pushing users to install their payment method, that’s no longer a cohesive experience and the success of the payment going through is dependent on 3p services.
Not saying Apple is wrong or right, but your response isn’t considering the actual end-to-end user experience that will result from it, which is the part that Apple does care about.
One solution here is: then we solve the next problem, that is: we enable a payment standard like India does with say UPI and enforce all apps to use that standard, and so all apps should be able to accept any payment method which enforces that standard.
But also, users who really care about end-to-end user experience will automatically prefer standard payment apps. So, then bad apps should automatically get weeded out.
Finally, it is possible I admit, that here, we have "What's good for an Apple user?" vs "What's good for long term goals of the system?". Because it is quite possible that the long-term cost that happens because of the monopolistic practices of Apple only impact poor users negatively, and not rich users. And therefore, the only argument that actually works is, "This is bad for the whole population in general in long term, because of the potential for abuse in future by a company."
In such a case of potential abuse, it is possible that the users would then look the government to help them out, possibly at huge cost to the government. So, it might make financial sense on the part of the government to prevent such a situation from arising in the first place. And then,
the real solution to this problem would be to break up Apple the phone hardware company from Apple the iOS company from Apple the payments company.
Well, isn't that the point? If you desire uniformity above all then a local monopoly is the best possible situation for you.
Competition requires diversity, there has to be different offerings which work in slightly different ways.
An app on your phone is "third party" from the perspective of Apple but from your perspective it is a first party. You are doing business with them, presumably because you wanted to.
It’s a tragedy of the commons situation though. Apple can try to enforce policies at some level but at the point where every 3p app is pushing their own payments solution, it’s a lost cause.
Right now, Apple can enforce payment guidelines uniformly across everything and they can provide the subscription and payment management experience that they want. If they open it up, then apps will force users to use their payment mechanisms. I suspect you’re overly discounting that people can treat their Apple relationship as the sole party responsible for what happens on their phone and overly privileging the how people interpret “doing business” with arbitrary 3p apps, especially if they’re not subscriptions (and for subscriptions I trust Apple to not follow dark patterns trying to get me to stay).
I agree you should be able to pick at least to give your payment details directly, but I think it makes sense to allow that apps be required to also ask preferentially for Apple Pay if there’s no such payment information provided.
The previous state was that apps can force users to use their own payment mechanism, but only if Apple made the apps. As a result of the ruling, Apple's competitors now also can, and the playing field between Apple and Apple's competitors is closer to level.
The key takeaway is that Apple's payment processing business shouldn't be treated preferentially over a competing payment processor by Apple's mobile OS business, so any solution has to start there, and only then consider what Apple wants.
I don’t think it means Apple Pay is more secure compared to another payment method just that it could be easier to trick someone if you could emulate more aspects of the authentic experience.
So, HIP at a raw level is as performant as CUDA. The real problems come from higher level stack (BLAS, LAPACK libraries for example). But not all software need higher level stack. So, then it
becomes a cost benefit analysis.
A 15k AMD part vs a 60k nvidia part. For 100 Nvidia GPUs, you can buy 200 AMD GPUs and at least 2-3 engineers for 3 years at 300k to fix the specific library for that GPU. If you can make that work for a lower level library right now, then it makes to sustain it in future.
And nothing is wrong about that in my opinion. As long as the point they are making is cogent, better use of English is just better for the whole environment.
Also, I use akin and perplexing quite often in my text. The semicolon much more rarely however. But when I write professional text, then yes, I use semicolons too.
"Der Weg der digitalen Souveränität folgt aber auch einem klaren industriepolitischen Kompass. Meine Vision eines starken Digitalstandorts in Europa kann so Wirklichkeit werden, weil wir unsere öffentlichen Budgets nicht mehr nur für Lizenzgebühren aufwenden müssen, sondern in echte Programmierungsleistungen unserer heimischen Digitalwirtschaft investieren und damit Wertschöpfung und Arbeitsplätze vor Ort schaffen."
They talk a big talk about digital Sovereignty in Europe and then clicking on the English link of the page makes the page disappear. The key underlying factor of a strong open source strategy is a big enough market to justify the upfront investment in writing the code. I'm sure the state wants to talk big about open source and Europe but when it actually comes to collaborating with multiple partners, especially from non-German countries, things are going to fall flat on their face.
With translation services so good and available nowadays, English shouldn’t be a prerequisite for collaboration with other countries, especially when English isn’t even the prevalent language of those other countries.
That's a pretty useless answer. Just because you cannot fully define something doesn't mean you cannot define parts of it or have different useful definitions of it.
Spanish siesta's are still just 2-3 hours long. In traditional Indian cultures, people would often work between 6am and 11am and then from 5pm to 9pm, because middle of the day was too hot to do any kind of physical work.
So, I'm definitely going for weather as the reason for the tradition and not any timezone shift. And that also means that office work and air conditioning should reduce this practice over time.
Reasons for buying other laptop (at least for developers):
1. Better choice of desktop environment (KDE/GNOME vs OS X)
2. Wider/better selection of applications
3. Better development environment
4. Ease of deployment of your own apps
5. Better fit for your budget (why spend 3000 Euros on a
limited set of features, when you can spend the same amount and get huge number of features/better features)
6. Capability to connect upto 3 external displays (which Macbook has got only recently)
There's no chance I use a Linux laptop again. The Mac will run all the open source type stuff out of the box most of the time, or if you're really deploying for Linux only then you use Docker anyway.
#2 is untrue unless you're installing Windows. #3, well somehow there's no iTerm2 equivalent on Linux, and the terminal emu is one thing you'll always use even when SSHing elsewhere. #6 is a serious point, though.
