The fact that Apple went to the trouble to develop a Windows driver for the Pro Display XDR but lock it down so it only works on Macs running Boot Camp - there is no justification for that other than malice.
Did they write a driver for Windows? The review wasn’t clear. They just said it only worked on Windows if you’re running Bootcamp. That could easily mean the Mac (computer) does all the “driver” work, not necessarily macOS (the OS). In which case, that would explain why it doesn’t work on any computer other than a Mac.
I will admit that I know very little about monitors or their drivers but it wouldn't surprise me that such a sophisticated piece of hardware requires a driver.
That all their current hardware is supported on Windows 10, and has been since the release of Windows 10? That's not malice, that's following your plan.
You literally want to place the blame solely on a third world country for the deaths and disease of all these child laborers when it's our first world addiction to their resources driving the injustice in the first place? Who is in a better economic standing to improve this situation?
Would you have no problem buying ivory, since it's the poacher who acted immorally, and you as the end consumer have no responsibility as to how it was supplied?
I don't throw this word around lightly, but what we are enabling in the Congo is evil, and all so we can drive expensive electric cars and pretend like we're making the world better. It's pathetic.
The thing with Ivory is that it was the traders, not the producers, making the money. You can ruin trader profitability by not trading with them. You can't convince Congo to stop using a child labor force with no protections by making them more broke - they'll just retask the labor force into different labor. We've seen this with diamonds.
How is "addiction" to their resources driving injustices? I live in Australia, where we export plenty of minerals (including cobalt, incidentally). We don't have children working (and dying) in mines, AFAIK.
So clearly it's not an issue of cobalt, it's a problem within the Congo.
Saying that WASM has no reason to exist is going a bit far. Rather than trying to list the reasons, I'm going to refer to the official FAQ: https://webassembly.org/docs/use-cases/
> Better execution for languages and toolkits that are currently cross-compiled to the Web (C/C++, GWT, …).
> Image / video editing.
> Games
> Peer-to-peer applications
> ...
In my view it's trying to create a safe sandbox for things that we previously used unsafe sandboxes (Flash, Java, Silverlight etc.) for. A standard interface for all of these will be much better for everyone.
I think the shields analogy is misplaced. Also, a manager blaming themself for the choices of their employees shouldn't be a hard rule. As a manager I do my best to create a good environment for my employees, but I'm also not omnipotent, and the actions/inactions or simply the market position of the company as a whole can be impossible for me to control and be a bigger factor than anything I could do immediately for my team. Understandably the buck stops at the manager, but we can all only do our best and sometimes that's not good enough.
I guess to simplify:
Shitty manager ===> Employees leave
Employees leave =/=> Shitty manager
> Happy people don't leave jobs they love.
Debatable, but worth noting that some people are never happy.
If Tinder forced people to do background checks, propublica would do a similar write-up about how invasive that is and how it disproportionately affects [affected group]. The only way to win this game is to not play.
> “It is expected behavior that the Location Services icon appears in the status bar when Location Services is enabled. The icon appears for system services that do not have a switch in Settings.”
My question then is WHY? If they allow granular control over some location collection settings, but not others, and the only way to disable background collection is to turn location off entirely, then doesn't this defeat the purpose of offering granular control at all? What possible reason could there be for having it set up this way?
In my ideal scenario, Maps would have location access when open or navigating but nothing else.
Your use case may be different but personally I just want to make sure that untrustworthy third party apps (Facebook, random games, etc) don't get location access. I'm fine with Apple services having access. So for me the way it is right now does everything I need.
Some folks (myself included) by default prefer to segment their trust by vendor, not by application, since it tends to be aligned anyway. For example, as per GP I'm fine with any Apple app having location access because by buying the phone I made an implicit decision to trust the company. In contrast, Facebook's stuff can fuck off into the black hole of mistrust they dug for themselves.
Finer granularity of trust (+ve or -ve) occurs only in exceptional cases.
As with so much in life (and in tech), the greatest process efficiency occurs when you standardise a common case and manage by exception.
I would still like to have the ability to examine and toggle them each individually. Currently what I do is to turn on location services when I want to use a map app, and turn them back off once I'm done. But this is inconvenient.
what services would you like to keep location turned on then? Why do you trust them to have access all the time and at the same time you don't trust apple themselves for useful features like "find my phone"?
Still doesn't answer why some Apple services have granular control and others don't. The implication in offering the controls is that you could control how the phone uses location data. Excluding some services from the controls negates the value of having controls at all.
The law also says there can be no gender wage gap.
I've worked at several big tech companies and they all abused H1B's. The immigrant workers were paid a lot less than citizens. It pissed me off because the immigrant workers were treated like crap and also I would imagine it puts downward pressure on my own salary.
I worked at a company that gave referral bonuses to employees for new hires. It went like this: $2,000 for a white. $3,000 for a black or Asian. $5,000 for an Indian. HMMM.
There's little incentive for an individual to report anything. You've seen how "whistleblowers" get treated. Up against a big company with a legal department, chances are good that they know how to put up chaff, redirect, deny and obfuscate their abusive practices. Why stick your neck out when it's a systemic problem?
