521–530 of 693 posts
It’s a weird thing that a stimulant can help you chill; from this one could conjecture that an amphetamine to keep you awake isn’t being used to treat ADHD.
I am not a medical Doctor; I am not many things.
Although it would appear that A&E and GP Drs around here aren’t up on lis-Dex
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Certain internet communities have a culture of dunking on them, but they do not represent any kind of real majority. The housing market continues to show a preference towards communities with HOAs.
> The housing market continues to show a preference towards communities with HOAs. I wouldn't read too much from that. The market preferring something doesn't mean most people dealing with it like it, it means that it makes money for the people with most say in the matter. In this case, I think the sufficient explanation for the phenomenon is that HOAs are good at protecting property values. In my experience, most of…
Uh yeah, that's their defined purpose that everybody knows about and agrees upon. I've lived in several properties under HOAs, haven't had any trouble, and don't know anyone personally who's had any trouble either.
IMO, HOA problems are of those things that's extremely rare in practice, but makes for outrage-inducing stories on the internet that get upvoted heavily and widely viewed. Since this is well known and plenty of people will do anything for internet upvotes, I'd bet a significant number of the stories are either made up entirely or are highly exaggerated and misleading.
If HOAs were really that bad, you'd see a market for homes advertising the lack of them. We don't though. The better analogy is internet free speech. In theory, everybody likes free speech. But if you create a new forum specifically for the purpose of not censoring anything, it tends to get filled with the worst assholes of the internet. Similarly, you can guess who'd be itching to move in if you advertised your housing development as not having a HOA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the claim is the app promotes drug use, which it doesn't You don't think it could reinforce the idea that Amphetamines could be a useful tool to preserve wakefulness?
They are. Militaries around the world agree. So do doctors who prescribe them for narcolepsy and other disorders. I think it is a good name. The fact remains that in most places amphetamines are an illegal drug when acquired without a prescription. I think he should just rebrand. A name change is not a big deal, given the app has low name recognition in the first place. News of the rebrand will be the first Google re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know a very intelligent software engineer who told me he had never used Exercism (despite him using other similar tools) simply because he’s a practicing Catholic and thought the name to be in poor taste. You definitely alienate people at the fringes by naming things something even slightly risqué.
You could argue that this is also why we now have system services instead of daemons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that also doesn't mean you should stop voicing your concerns publicly at injustice. Being angry at some injustice doesn't automatically make you unhappy too, if the anger is used constructively and positively. You can voice your concern and be practical too. The article is actually quite well written and even highlights, with examples, how Apple applies such naming rules arbitrarily. I've said this before -…
> Being angry at some injustice doesn't automatically make you unhappy too I guess I was assuming that anger and happiness are somewhat mutually exclusive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you expect to see a box on a shelf of any retail store labeled, “Amphetamine” with a colorful picture of drugs? It’s entirely reasonable for the retail store to tell the vendor to rename the product or else it will be removed from the shelf.
My grocery store sells an energy drink called liquid death.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, but the App store may constitute an essential facility for a desktop program developed specifically for Apple Computers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_facilities_doctrine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because at a retail store the expectation is that if I see a box labeled "amphetamine" it better contain actual amphetamine. Obviously that's not acceptable, so it's not going to happen. When I buy software, I certainly don't expect to get drugs. When I buy a game called "Surgeon Simulator" I don't expect to receive actual surgeon training any more than I expect to get amphetamine after getting an app called amph…
Good point. And the App Store is not a retail store - developers PAY THEM to distribute their wares. They are Apple's customers too!
Unfortunately American culture is simply unsuited for free expression unless buttressed by something list the 1st amendment, which of course only applies to Government.
Fundamentally Apple can and will do whatever it wants and there is no point complaining to them. OTOH allowing direct installs and multiple apps stores is a security disaster. But parliaments can pass laws to regulate monopoly conduct, in the same way that essential services are. Privacy, competition policy (including market access), arbitration procedures for small vs large companies, etc are all mature fields of law, and action in any large market would have significant effect on Apple/Google policy.
Lobby your politicians. Support organizations like EFF.
[1] https://www.usenix.org/system/files/login/articles/login_dec...
I tweeted my suggestion of rebranding as “vigil” and selling “pro” features to allow branding as “provigil” (commercial modafinil name).