The hammer analogy has its limitations here. When the task is simple (hitting a nail), a simple and good design lasts. When the task(s) is/are complicated, depend on context, are tied to human understanding, knowledge or training in using machines, then design could benefit from both refinements as well as radical and creative thinking. I also don’t think that just because we have a good design, even for a hammer, we should stop people from challenging norms and thinking in bold ways. Here’s a contrasting example to hammers - chairs. The objective is simple, to sit on it. The design innovations still continue to this day, on how a chair can be structured. There have been interpretations of chairs that challenge the very notion that chairs need legs.
And yet being a shorter person I still have to hunt far and wide for a chair that doesn't leave my feet dangling or cut into my thighs. Lately I've taken to cutting things down or upcycling to get a reasonable fit.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I do appreciate that in the Apple ecosystem, "I'm not the product". There is a level of trust with their products and services that I do feel thankful for and will continue to pay for it. I do not want a different app store. I do not want to have apps direct access to the fundamental iOS services.
Don't get me wrong, I really like a lot of the companies that have formed this coalition but I don't think their ask is right. I cannot honestly read about the impact to democracy, primarily because we are unable to define and protect what is private data and what is public, and then agree to what is being asked for by this coalition of partners.
However they promise to safeguard the data, I don't think they have a sound business model / sound business principles / a long enough pedigree of protecting user data for me to trust them.
I also see what all of this is about - just a redistribution of the pot of money. This is not about anti-competitiveness, this is not about an Apple Tax hurting consumers (https://www.theverge.com/21445923/platform-fees-apps-games-b...)
I honestly hope that if Apple does lose the anti-trust case, that they split the iPhone into one that allows these non-Apple stores and services and another that offers a Apple managed ecosystem.
I for sure will chose the one that is governed by Apple.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I do appreciate that in the Apple ecosystem, "I'm not the product". There is a level of trust with their products and services that I do feel thankful for and will continue to pay for it.
I do not want a different app store.
I do not want to have apps direct access to the fundamental iOS services.
Don't get me wrong, I really like a lot of the companies that have formed this coalition but I don't think their ask is right. I cannot honestly read about the impact to democracy, primarily because we are unable to define and protect what is private data and what is public, and then agree to what is being asked for by this coalition of partners.
However they promise to safeguard the data, I don't think they have a sound business model / sound business principles / a long enough pedigree of protecting user data for me to trust them.
I also see what all of this is about - just a redistribution of the pot of money. This is not about anti-competitiveness, this is not about an Apple Tax hurting consumers (https://www.theverge.com/21445923/platform-fees-apps-games-b...)
I honestly hope that if Apple does lose the anti-trust case, that they split the iPhone into one that allows these non-Apple stores and services and another that offers a Apple managed ecosystem.
I for sure will chose the one that is governed by Apple.
This comment isn’t based on facts. I suggest you read this (https://www.lawfareblog.com/tiktok-and-law-primer-case-you-n...) to get the legal basis right. You are free to disagree or call out US in an emotional tirade, but have the facts right on why the President can make these decisions.
Additionally, painting China as a mere victim here ignores the complexity of the geopolitical tensions we are currently facing.
I’ll be the devil’s advocate here. US as a country of choice for education, work and life is unbeatable. The author himself is looking forward to getting the citizenship soon. US also has a lot of structural issues, as any country and any structure of government does. US educational institutions and the teaching will still hold appeal and after Covid settles down, it’ll still continue to attract international students.
While international students pay full price, international students also receive scholarships and the student loan crisis of (mostly) American students shows that American students are not as subsidized as the author claims.
Economy is interlinked - international students end up in tech sector jobs, earn exorbitant sums (PM in a FANG company is earning $400K while average American wage is closer to $50K), possibly joining social media businesses (morally challenged business models) and further straining the social fabric in the US. This is my conjecture, based on my experience. I’m an international student and studied in a premier US university and have all my friends working mostly in SF and NYC.
Of late, I’m starting to judge things on the basis of what heals US and avoid picking things in isolation.
In summary, I see that the immigration rules have been harshly implemented, but again, it’s covid and I’m not sure what a measured response is anymore. US is well within its right to control immigration as it feels like, internationals like US because there is something about US that’s hard to unpack, but as a whole, something to cherish and love. In my opinion, the author is fair to call out the immigration rule implementation, everything else feels like a rant and I have a hard time buying into the criticism.
IANAL but bring a lot of knowledge from a corporate structure perspective. A company is nothing but a contract that is agreed upon between a group of people. While there is a distinction between airing a company vs an individual (concept of limited liability), this isn’t the case when we are talking about fraud. Fraud exposes the board and management for charges. In this case, she was on the board and she is also the CFO. It is fair game that she is held responsible for fraud. Now who should hold her responsible for it is another question. Does US have the right to do so? I personally think so. What value would the US financial fabric have if a company HQ’d in an extra territorial jurisdiction is able to conduct fraud elsewhere, using banks that are global? How would your idea that US cannot charge the CFO extrapolate is a company is HQ’d in Cayman Islands?
It is quite simple how it should work and indeed how it works for literally all countries except the US.
I have no issue with the CFO of the company being held criminally accountable for fraud if it is the case. However, this is not the purview of the US. It was fraud against a non-US entity outside of US jurisdiction by a non-US citizen. It should thus not be tried under US law. If the US is unhappy that they cannot apply their law abroad they are free to pull out of global trade.
If it is obvious that the Cayman Islands turn a blind eye to fraud and do not prosecute fraudsters, the banks are free to stop doing business in the Cayman Islands in order to avoid having to pay for damages out of their own pockets. Otherwise, the federal government can also impose restrictions on the Cayman Island's access to the US banking system.
This is a very simple truth - the US Financial system is built to enforce economic violence against various innocent entities. I have absolutely no sympathy towards maintaining it and maintaining its power over the world without the US having to be accountable to the consequences of too strict restrictions, as happens under the system as it is currently, that gives the US Government fantastic and unjustified privilege and power.
Interesting that this comes at a time when Apple is redefining itself with Privacy, iPadOS and other major efforts. Could this have been a planned announcement? Just wondering the timing and if it means anything..
As an Indian who had a very high paying job but lost out to the lottery and had to return to India, I welcome this bill. As someone else in this thread mentioned, this bill only gets half the way, they should remove the lottery and pick from the pool sorted by salary. The current combination of limited retraining of unemployed American labor pool and exploited workers by Indian consulting firms is exacerbating the populism and rightly so. I’m not against my fellow countrymen, I’m against the companies and the management that have failed to balance their own activities and abused the system. Indian government doesn’t want this to happen of course, as they’ll have a pool of unemployed population within the country. This would’ve been fine if this pool would’ve been uneducated, but an educated pool that can’t find jobs in the market will focus its sights on the government and demand changes. All in all, much needed change that unfortunately had to be delivered as a shock to the system and at the hands of a mostly incompetent president.
