> What I am saying is that women make bad choices [...] and later regret it
Yes, especially when those women are also children. One of the many reasons it's illegal to have sex with them and especially illegal to rent their bodies to your friends.
Only time I've ever been successfully phished was the App Store. I have an Android phone but I wanted to try the ChatGPT app on my iPad and naively clicked the first result, which was of course a scummy clone. I have since wised up and understand the App Store search results to be roughly torrent search levels of trustworthy.
I guess the bar for user trust has now dropped enough across the board to sell more off without losing customers? Pretty sorry state of affairs.
Your experience illustrates precisely why the ads in the ad store should be worthless. I have never clicked on the ad in the app store. Regardless of how legitimate it looks, I will never click it. The vast majority for ads are clearly either scams or they are at least attempting to piggy back on the popularity of others, and I'll support neither of those cases.
I don't know what it is with Apple, maybe they aren't sufficiently exposed to scams, but they seem to not understand it's an issue, or their metrics are solely based on revenue. Because even if something is a borderline scam, Apple probably gets their 30%.
Getting strong The Scorpion and the Frog vibes from this situation. Unfortunately, this is just the nature of a profit-maximising entity. Profit is the gap between how much it can take and how little it can give. It concedes nothing without a demand. Why would it?
The playbook isn't exactly a secret. What you might describe as a "classic walled garden enshittification trap", Peter Thiel and Sam Altman would describe as "monopoly (affectionate)": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REKbaA6USy4 – "proprietary technology, network effects, economies of scale", exactly by the book.
I think the bias towards optimism is commendable but I hope this is the wake-up call the community needs to treat "your love is valuable enough to build a business around" as the Faustian bargain it is and keep Core Devices on a short leash. They want to own you, not work with you. It's their nature.
It's been like this for decades. Remember Google+? Remember Google Talk/Chat/Hangouts/Meet/Allo/Duo etc? The company simply values internal political advantage over coherent product development or user experience.
At Google, you're not the customer, and you're not even the product; you're a metric in a promo packet. Your value in the "AI engagement" column vastly exceeds your value as a satisfied user. The system is working as intended.
Do you not think there might be a relationship between the lack of due process and the choice of terms?
Like, maybe the defining difference between arrest and abduction is whether the action is the output of an accountable system of justice, rather than whether the people doing it are the right kind of people and the people having it done to them are the wrong kind of people.
For some years now there has been a segment of the American left, particularly visible on social media, who believes that strictly enforcing immigration laws at all is bad. This predates the current guy, as well as his administration as the former guy. So, when I read an article by someone like the writer here whose online activity has other shibboleths of a left more extreme than found in mainstream parties in many other democracies, my assumption is he is coming out of this trend and the current events, as appalled as he is by them, is not the ultimate cause of his use of that loaded language.
That's a very... pre-1748 kind of philosophy. Hume, Keynes, Russell, Popper and others have written at length about the limitations of prediction from past experience. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
Even if we accept that extrapolation is the best you can do, you'd still need to justify why the domain of "past experience" is exactly wide enough to generalise across current and previous US presidencies, but not so wide as to include even one of the numerous populist strongman takeovers in non-US political history. Proof by American Exceptionalism, perhaps?
It'd be cool if you could start the growth engine from manual mode. Maybe for breadth-first growth you could add all the placed characters, and for depth-first just the last cell you clicked (+ some kind of visual feedback to show what that is)?
I'd also love to play with some way of enabling/disabling the characters to create a subset and see how that behaves.
One last thing is it'd be nice to toggle the grid lines off.
To quote DHH: "when much of the media reports a story like this, it's often without citing the specific words in question"
I think you lose a lot when you abstract away someone's words as "positions that alienate". Pineapple on pizza is a position that alienates, as is forced sterilisation of criminals. So here's some specific words:
> London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits [ie white, as specified by the Wikipedia article the words "native Brits" link to]
> There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese.
He doesn't think brown people belong in the UK. His "positions" are racism. He's racist. That's the problem.
Where have all the enlightenment-values rationalist monks gone now that we so desperately need people to combine P and P -> Q?
>How could you possibly come to the conclusion that it's not about race?
It has nothing to do with race, everything to do with ethnicity. Austrians are racially White, but are not native to London.
There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners. The only "Brits" native to Great Britain are White Brits.
I think you're not getting his key point, or you are but you're being coy about it. He did say skin colour, in the form of "native Brits". How do you know that? Because of the article he linked, defining the terms he was using. The article is called "Ethnic groups in London", not "Cultural groups in London". He quotes statistics about "native Brits" that match the article's demographics for "White British". There is zero ambiguity here.
If I say "I love a [sweet treat](wikipedia.org/wiki/ice_cream)! It's so refreshingly cold on a nice hot day", there's just no intellectually honest way to claim maybe I meant apple pie. Do you understand? He's not talking about Russian immigrants because they're white. He is talking about Pakistani immigrants because they're brown. He's literally telling you what he means and you're choosing to ignore it. Why?
Perhaps there are, in fact, reasons to not say skin colour even when that's what you mean.
He talked about Pakistani immigrants because they were raping girls and British police did nothing. Maybe "native Brits" are doing the same and getting away with it? Again, you are noticing what you want to see. We can discuss if it's because they are from Pakistan and their culture allows it, or maybe criminals have no nationality and that would be a valid discussion, but bringing skin color here is an obvious distraction.
There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners. The only "Brits" native to Great Britain are White Brits.
Hilariously he's talking about Londinium, a city founded and administrated by non native non British people as part of a foreign beachhead of control by a non British empire. "Native Britains" were excluded as residents or in tiny numbers for four centuries.
London has always been a hive of culture, he's just pining for the nostalgic times he wore onions on his belt and was blind to the depth of culture in London.
There have been Russians in London since before the USSR, not that DHH would have noticed unless they spoke given so few of those Russian were Asiatic or from the steppes.
His point was that he has now finally noticed changes and that he's had his eyes opened by the likes of Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, Andrew McMaster, Paul Harris, Wayne King, and Tommy Robinson.
As a fun fact, both me and my wife can detect ex-USSR immigrant from afar (even those who have been living here in the US for some time). There is something different in how we look, walk, behave etc. Not wrong, just different, and not everybody of course. Humans are very observing when it comes to cultural code and a big part of it is subconcious, you don't even realize it.
Then he goes on to point out more than sixty percent of the city were "native Brits" in 2000, but that number corresponds to the White British categorization.
Ergo he's conflating White British with native British.
He also said "A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now." Maybe he is extremely observant, but I don't think that follows unless he is talking about skin color.
It's a bit tricky because velocity and altitude are floored every step, and you can only burn on whole timesteps so you can't necessarily hit the target velocity and altitude in a single burn.
Yes, especially when those women are also children. One of the many reasons it's illegal to have sex with them and especially illegal to rent their bodies to your friends.