231–240 of 1001 posts
Ranking how much it’s all captured and handed out to buds and pre-IPO AirBnB stock funded. Snooze.
Call me when you want to knock this thing over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really consider Apple's control over a proprietary protocol which they invented and maintain to be comparable to a scenario in which Apple "sends a man" to take "your fire extinguisher […] from your house"? I've re-written this comment five or six times in an attempt to find the most charitable interpretation, but I just cannot comprehend how it made it through your filter and out onto the internet.
There's an open standard they're refusing to adopt that would be more secure than forcing users back to SMS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you a lawyer because Apple stopping third parties from using their service being in any way illegal sounds extremely hard to believe
> The CFAA prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization, but fails to define what “without authorization” means. - From the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Other way around. If anything, it sounds to me like Beeper Mini was acting illegally by accessing Apple’s servers in a way they didn’t give permission for. The CFAA is ripe for abuse. I’m not say…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really consider Apple's control over a proprietary protocol which they invented and maintain to be comparable to a scenario in which Apple "sends a man" to take "your fire extinguisher […] from your house"? I've re-written this comment five or six times in an attempt to find the most charitable interpretation, but I just cannot comprehend how it made it through your filter and out onto the internet.
There's an open standard they're refusing to adopt that would be more secure than forcing users back to SMS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why most people (should) opt to use a cross platform messenger, such as Signal.
If signal would officially allow third party clients, non-phone-number-bound users and maybe federation that'd be great. It does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is probably the company that most has my interests at heart: they're very privacy focused, masterful at encryption and making it simple, and makes products I love. Do you really think they're the worlds most valuable company because of "corporate interests" and not because people like their products?
> Apple is probably the company that most has my interests at heart: they're very privacy focused, masterful at encryption and making it simple, and makes products I love. Apple is a business, they have no users interests at heart. They may be very privacy focused, and maybe masterful at encryption but for sure they do not make products I love. Their instant change of UI, forceful updates and territoriality behaviour…
Hope you're having a great day :)
> "if Apple truly cares about the privacy and security of their own iPhone users, why would they stop a service that enables their own users to now send encrypted messages to Android users, rather than using unsecure SMS?" - Eric Migicovsky 1. If Apple sees this as a gap, it is very obvious that they would address that themselves, rather than by allowing a hack to exploit loopholes in their architecture 2. Since Appl…
> 2. Since Apple has no control over the Beeper mini client, they would not consider it safe, it could easily be spying on users without their knowledge. Since I have no control over iMessage, I would not consider it safe. It could easily be spying on me without my knowledge.
One thing which is really confusing is why are Android users obsessed with iMessage? Android users can send text messages to iPhones, the can call iPhone users, and they can use third party messaging apps to communicate with iPhone users. It really isn’t clear to me why so many people are so angry they cannot use iMessage on Android.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's think higher than that. Let's just get rid of megacorporations: let's mandate that any company with more than amount of X employees should be broken down into smaller divisions, with a separate board and CEO, and make it that no one can be on more than one board at the same time. Make X low enough, 250, and all of this would go away: no more corporatism, no more monopolies, no more special groups interests payi…
lol, what if china says no? Now I have a company that cannot compete at the scale some chinese company can. OK so we close the border to imports from companies that are larger than our rules. When has that ever worked out?