The Touch Bar is mandatory on the 15” model, and while there is a 13” without it, it has two USB ports instead of four, and is using a lower power class CPU. They advertised it more as a replacement to the MacBook Air in the original keynote.
Duckduckgo is a lovely idea with abhorrent search results. Like, unusably bad results, at least to the extent that I'm a reasonably tech savvy user. I'm often searching for papers as a grad student, or typing things "close enough" and hoping Google figures it out for me etc. Duckduckgo cannot keep up. I love Bangs, I love the idea, but the search is nigh-useless.
That said, I use StartPage, who have a contract I believe with Google. It's Google's search results, minus the tracking. It's as much as I am willing to compromise on something as fundamental as search.
The results for localized stuff, e.g. a local store, are horrible. The results for complicated questions where the query is either not very specific or the page might not have all words, are also really bad. But if you have a good idea of what you're looking for, which is most of the time for me, it works very well.
At least it's honest about not having results whereas Google presents 5 billion, all of which are missing one of the three keywords (which it notes in a small, light grey text, which you only notice after the first three results were completely unrelated and you were wondering what went wrong).
For example, "new double c++" is the query I did most recently and in the top 3 there are 2 results that answer my question.
Making something up at random like "torrent clients" gives me as top hit the Wikipedia article "comparison of bittorrent clients", which is better than expected.
I can't seem to think of a vague query right now. "audio books" gives me sites with audio books; "psychology books" gives me articles of 'the best 50 psychology books' and such; and looking in my query history, "draw unicode" seems vague but the top hit (shapecatcher.com) is the one I was looking for.
Something localized then: "drankwinkel echt" (where Echt is a place and drankwinkel a liquor store) indeed gives terrible results. The store name, surprisingly, works though: "gal & gal echt" gives similar results to google.nl.
> At least it's honest about not having results whereas Google presents 5 billion, all of which are missing one of the three keywords (which it notes in a small, light grey text, which you only notice after the first three results were completely unrelated and you were wondering what went wrong).
Yes, that's really bad; it's what killed Altavista and could really be Google's undoing.
Still, Google is miles ahead of the competition.
Small experiment: searching for "movie old man balloons" on Google and Bing.
On Bing there is a first line of 4 videos, none of them related to the movie "Up" in any way. The second link is to Up on Imdb (good). The 3rd link is to a crazy religious fanatic site page titled "Disney PIXAR's, 'Up' - The Sugarcoating of Pedophilia!" (WTF??!? - but at least related to the movie). The 4th link is again to a youtube video with no connection to the movie.
On Google, the first 8 links are to the movie. There is a line of images, all from the movie / movie poster. There's a list of 4 questions "People also ask" that shows questions about the movie ("How many balloons would it take to lift a house?"). To be fair, the crazy Baptist site does show up on Google too (God has good SEO!), but way down below the fold.
Anyway, my point is, when answering the question, Google is certain you're looking for information about Up, and tries to give it to you.
Bing seems to have doubts and tries to guess if maybe you're looking for a funny video of a man in the subway wearing a balloon hat (??!? it's not a "movie"!!) or the hit song "99 Luftballons" from 1983 (not a "movie" either!)
Bing tries hard, but is obviously more than a little clueless.
> Small experiment: searching for "movie old man balloons" on Google and Bing.
Your experiment's results are not repeatable. When I do that here:
* Bing gives me 8 pages about Up (including that spoof site), one about Danny Deckchair, and a page about a magician who re-creates old movies with balloons.
* Google gives me 13 pages about Up (also including that spoof site), a book of best movie scenes on its page for The Third Man, and an article from The Rotarian from 1948.
Of course, some knowledge of how these things work teaches that this is a terrible methodology, given that it does not account for the fact that both Bing and Google tailor their search results to the searcher. One should at the very minimum log out of one's Google and Bing accounts, which you made no mention of doing.
Yes. But the fact that it's a parody of fundamentalist Christianity makes it a very bad result, because it's a comment on religion (or fanaticism, or Internet culture, or what have you) and not about the movie itself.
A perfect search engine would not return this on the first page of results about the movie, because it's not about the movie.
> The results for localized stuff, e.g. a local store, are horrible... But if you have a good idea of what you're looking for, which is most of the time for me, it works very well.
DDG "worse" search results are also a product of you not being profiled. Or to put it in another way, Google better search results are also a product of all your habits being gathered and analyzed.
Sadly we can't have a search engine that knows nothing about us and guesses at the same time what we are looking for. DDG can give better results, but this require being more specific when searching.
I'm not sure this is true. Google results are still amazing when used at a friends' or a public computer and not logged in, etc. (not to mention incognito mode, which you could argue still profiles you through your ip).
Other search engines feel like a noob salesperson who needs to be told 5 times in 5 different ways what you need -- and it's really simple stuff too.
Google results get "better" (depending on your definition of better) as you go in very specific ways. When I browse I clear cookies every time a tab is closed and I never log into Google just for searching. I've noticed at work I'll be googling for programing stuff and if my session gets "stale" (been doing a bunch of searches without closing the tab) I notice Google starts making assumptions about what I want. For example, if I Google a generic programming term say "string," on a stale session Google will assume the string I want is programming rather than, say, crafting or physics, and the string I want is the language I've been Googling in my last few search terms. So if I googled "string" in a fresh session I get a couple generic Wikipedia pages and some references from various programming language. If I Google "string" in a stale session Google "knows" I'm looking for the Java string so they will show me Java string results. If I wanted those same results I'd have to Google "Java string." It does make you lazy at searching though because you start thinking "Google knows what I'm talking about."
DDG could still profile you via an account and just not sell the info to advertisers. Incorporate in Germany for the strong privacy protections, et voila :)
In my experience, DuckDuckGo just requires a habit shift. You're used to Google knowing everything about you and utilizing that to provide you catered results. Be more specific on DDG and you should be fine.
Not at all. I'm not logged in to my Google account at my day job and I still got relevant search results when I arrived. DDG wouldn't after months of use at home.
How else can they profile me in a brand new job, in a brand new Windows installation, in Firefox, if I'm not logged in? The organization I work for has a lot of different job types and we're all proxied through the same external IP so they couldn't even profile my job type.
I got relevant results in my first day there. I didn't notice a drop in result quality.
Google is just that good even if I hate to admit it.
There's still a limited number of job types at your workplace. If you search for "django" odds are none of your non-technical colleagues have been searching for anything other than the Python framework at work.
It has greatly improved over the years. I remember it being unusably bad when I first tried it in 2013, but today I only have to revert to Google once in a while. That being said, there are rare occasions when it fails spectacularly, bringing up totally irrelevant results for simple searches.
It seems to expect more precise queries, while Google is geared toward "close enough" searches. I've found that DDG is often preferable when I have an exact phrase in mind. Google is sometimes too helpful, correcting errors that are not actually errors and failing to take some queries literally enough.
The main issues I have with DDG are that it doesn't seem to prioritize recent results (which can be good, but usually isn't) and it fails at local results, which is basically by design.
>Google is sometimes too helpful, correcting errors that are not actually errors and failing to take some queries literally enough.
While I am still personally a huge fan of Google's work in this are and many others, sometimes I long for the days of straight boolean search queries in search engines. I could often find exactly what I'm looking for, and get the same result each time.
Are there any other major or effective engines that allow for boolean queries beyond AND/OR?
A full set boolean queries, while useful for specifying a query, are likely far too computationally expensive at scale. The reason you don't see most major search engines abandon them is because the resources are better spent investing into heuristic algorithms that benefit a majority of the userbase.
DDG feels like it's still using Google's early algorithms, whereas Google has moved to prioritising more question or natural-language based searches recently.
You use DDG as your default engine. For most common searches it works fine, particularly nice is that if there is a wikipedia entry it will show it right there. When you have a tougher search and it doesn't work you just slap a '!g' or a '!b' on the end and turn it into a google/bing search.
Maybe you're searching for something really niche, but I use DDG and have no problem with its results. If I can't find what I'm looking for, I can always use !g to check google, and most of the time google doesn't have the answer either!
It really is as good as google for most things, in my experience. I use it by default and when it can't find what I'm looking for, Google usually doesn't do much better.
one of the last areas I've found myself going back to google is when I'm searching for a gif... Duck Duck Go will return them, but it is usually a very small subset of the available gifs out there.
After 2 attempts it's now my default search "portal". As other said, generic results are low grade. But the bangs and the "control" are worth this loss. I can search really fast on dedicated websites !yt !gi !gmaps !wbm (waybackmachine) and I don't have to worry about what's going on most of the time.
For past few years, I go to try DuckDuckGo every once in a while (especially when someone suggests that again on HN), but it disappoints me every time with the quality of search results.
Also, if it is using Bing on inside, I'm not then sure why the results are still different than that(even at the places where there's no scope for personalization). For example type this line exactly in both bing and ddg:
difference between std list and std set
The first result DDG shows is of a difference between set and a vector - not only that, it also highlights that result in a Google Card inspired fashion (which is worse because Google does that only when they have a certain amount of confidence in the answer), while the first result Bing shows is an actual difference between list and a set. So either Bing is cheating DDG, or DDG is doing something stupid on top of its results. (Also, if you cover the above string in quotes, Bing still shows 'some' search results, while DDG doesn't).
May be after using the '!' ninja techniques it'll be same as Google, but then I have also come to love the fact that I can type in 'my next flight' or 'Show me emails from ....' or 'remind me to ... ' and other personalized things on Google so may be my priorities are different here.
Sounds like your priorities are different; and that's fine. DDG doesn't parse your emails so it doesn't have your location, flight info nor a lot of user data to build personalized results. I like it a lot, it's gotten much better but it requires adaptation when coming from Google.. or just !g
I tried Duck Duck Go exactly because of the AMP issue. Its search results are bad enough that I couldn't keep using it even though I wanted to. I'm on Bing for now.
I really don't ex: "ice cream calories" share several but not all sites and use a different order for those they share, which just suggests similar algorithms.
PS: DDG redirected image searches to bing, but not generic searches. Which honestly seems reasonable as doing image search well is incredibly hard, with minimal payoffs.
Bing just feels gross to me, just like Google. But as someone pointed out, I guess DDG uses Bing for some of its results, so I don't have much of an argument here.
It's not a rebuttal - he's not trying to say Scott is wrong. He's pointing out Scott is a hypocrite. An insult is not an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.
I've read some pretty horrifying stories about Apple (this person had a cracked screen, Apple bricked the phone while attempting to repair it, replaced it behind his back, then charged him 3x -- they also have a required replacement device "security deposit" you must pay up front in order to even get them to attempt a repair):
I think that Amazon is best with their Kindle support.
You break a Kindle and they send you a new one for free (if it is under the 1 year warranty) even internationally.
Not that I know of. My guess is that somebody on that list threw a DMCA takedown notice at Github/Gitlab to get it pulled. Knee jerk reaction is to pull first, verify later.
That may have been the case with GitHub. Gitlab claimed that it fell into the same category as zero-day exploits (which is ridiculous), and that as such posting it wasn't responsible disclosure and it thus violated their ToS.
Sounds like he contacted some of the sites in the article and they blew him off ("We are 100% secure, don't you see the Verisign badge?!"). But yeah, that still makes sense that it could be pulled for that reason.
It's not just that it makes sense, that's what GitLab said. I can't find the link right now, but it's on the earlier HN post about Github/lab taking it down.
2006 Mazda3 with a bunch of miles. My wife bought it new and it's hard to make myself want to get anything else since it is paid off and gets great gas mileage.
Unfortunately The Loop isn't much of a news site, more of a controlled Apple leak blog. Dalrymple has gotten to the point of being a complete Apple shill.
Edit:
Compare the tone of the Loop article to Daring Fireballs:
!!! it includes a recording of a phone call with Apple !!!
Edit: After listening to the first 2 minutes of the call, i can say with absolute confidence that Apple is straight-up blackmailing him. I would love to hear opinions on whether this is something that could be taken to court.
Listening to the recording it seems that they do want to get the account reinstated but want Kapeli to release a statement on why the account was deactivated.
Which after reading the post and listening to the recording on why Apple hit the account it seems fair after all this has gone public. (Kapeli set up an account for a relative using his CC, gave them some of his old hardware and it's that account that was caught in the review fraud. So in Apples system the two accounts were linked so when they nuked one account, the other went along with it.)
A Blog posting from Kapeli explaining the cause of the account ban and that he has worked with Apple to unlink the two accounts and resolve the situation.
> What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing.
I didn't get from the call that he would have to admit and wrong doing, just explain what had happened and he got hit in the crossfire. Heck if I was in his boat I would end the blog post with "I would like to thank Apple and Phil for working with me to get this sorted and thanks to the community at large for helping to get this resolved." Not that they asked for a thank you but because I can see it from Apple's POV from Kapeli's recent Blog post.
It doesn't matter what he has to admit or not. The issue lies in this sentence:
> What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing.
The "if" is the problem here. Had Apple said "we'll reinstate your account AND please make a blog post stating xyz" everything would be fine. Making it conditional on the post despite being their mistake is just reprehensible.
It wasn't their mistake, it was his mistake. You can't just register an account, then hand it off to someone else and not be at least partially responsible for what happens through that account.
If Apple didn't want to avoid the bad PR, they could just terminate their business relationship permanently, and they'd be in the right, even morally, since it was Kapeli who violated the trust.
It's unclear whether he registered it himself, but it doesn't matter, since according to the terms of service:
"You can choose from the payment methods presented during your membership purchase. If you are paying by credit card and enrolling as an individual, you must use your own credit card to complete your purchase. If you do not, your enrollment will be delayed and you will be asked for a copy of your government-issued photo identification."
At least he did not use the same name. The two accounts use different names, otherwise apple would mention it because it's a huge evidence that the accounts are linked :)
It says if you do not pay by credit card, we want your photo ID, or at least it's ambiguous.
Again, it's unclear under whose name the account really was registered, but if he went through the trouble of sending in photo ID, Kapeli would probably mention that as to further exonerate him of any mistakes.
They're be asking for photo id of the actual account holder, i.e. the relative, in lieu of id via CC account. And given that Apple was willing to reinstate his account, Kapeli is already exonerated.
Apple was willing to reinstate the account only under the condition that Kapeli admits there was a mistake on his part, so clearly that doesn't exonerate him from having signed up for an account for a third party under his identity. This is Apple's position and I would expect they have designed their terms so that this position holds up.
It sure sounds like Schiller's team screwed up here and should reinstate his account forthwith.
In short, Kapeli helped a relative open an account years ago but has otherwise been unassociated with that account. He technically shouldn't have used his credit card to help his relative, but this is Romania and it's just a nominal $99 fee, so he probably didn't think much of it. Apple's stance is they now look at them as "linked" accounts due to the use of his credit card and old devices, so they were justified in shutting down his account for fraudulent activity on the other one.
Problem is Apple never contacted Kapeli's account before shutting both of them down. They didn't do any extra due diligence for a top developer. Their notices only went to the other account, apparently, and Kapeli never had a chance to see them. He just woke up one day and his account was banned.
Now, that's just dumb. If the accounts are linked, why not notify both accounts?
Kapeli's an extremely well-respected app and has oodles of credibility. That alone should have triggered a deeper investigation before shutting him down. That fact that they know what happened here and still refuse to reinstate the account is shameful.
Logic. Apple called him and conceded that the reason they thought they were the same "entity" is simply because both used the same credit card number. If Kapeli wanted to be deceptive and create another account to commit a bunch of fraud on that appeared unassociated with him, he'd use another credit card, bundle ID, etc.
Of course, because no one committing fraud ever makes mistakes.
I have no idea if Popescu was really involved in the fraudulent activity or not. But dismissing it as too dumb to be possible is no better than dismissing the possibility of Apple making a detection mistake as too dumb to be possible.
I'm referring to your claim that he would have used a different credit card and ID as if this is obviously true. It's neither true nor obvious since he didn't realize by his own admission that the accounts were linked.
You're misunderstanding the entire point of my comment. I was specifically addressing the assertion that Popescu would have used a different card for the other account if he were trying to commit fraud: "If Kapeli wanted to be deceptive and create another account to commit a bunch of fraud on that appeared unassociated with him, he'd use another credit card, bundle ID, etc."
This claim is untrue. Per Popescu's blog, he didn't know using the same bank/CC info would link the accounts. So no, he likely wouldn't have used a different card. So the implication that because he didn't use a different card, he therefore wasn't trying to commit fraud is invalid.
The reference to Apple being dumb was merely for comparison.
I get what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense. It is obvious that providing bank information will tie your identity to both accounts. That is utterly obvious. Ergo, by "linking" what he is referring to is being personally responsible for the behavior of the other person, even though they have a different name etc., not that Apple would be unable to see the common bank info.
> It is obvious that providing bank information will tie your identity to both accounts. That is utterly obvious.
It's clearly not obvious to Popescu per his own statement on the matter. Asserting repeatedly that it's obvious doesn't make it so.
> Ergo, by "linking" what he is referring to is being personally responsible for the behavior of the other person
This is a distinction without a difference. "Linking" the accounts is pointless unless it creates a meaningful relationship between them. The only reason to link accounts is to establish that they be somehow treated as a unit.
You are claiming that Popescu does not understand that handing his credit card info over to Apple for the other account, amongst other things, would reveal to Apple that he has a connection with it. That is an absurd claim.
Your evidence is his statement, which refers to a more specific technical use of the term "linking", namely responsibility for fraud as a combined "legal entity", the phrase that is used in the cited phone call. I will let the downvotes on your comment speak for themselves here.
I'm making the much more charitable claim that he didn't realize Apple would track the connection between the accounts. This is in line with both his actions and his statements. Your continued attempts to force your specific narrow interpretation onto his statement is absurd.
Your appeal to downvotes as some form of proof that your interpretation is correct is also absurd, partly because downvotes don't mean that much in general, but mostly because I have exactly one in total. So as with the rest of the thread your self-satisfaction seems rather unjustified.
I'd be willing to bet that Apple's call start with a statement that they are recording the call, that means you can record the call to because they know it's being recorded.
When a call starts with "this call may be recorded for quality assurance", I always say "thank you" to express my gratitude for them granting me explicit permission to record it.
"two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
After listening to the entire thing, I can say that Kapeli sounds like a complete ignoramus.
He has registered an account using his credentials, the account was involved in fraudulent activity, that makes him responsible, as an individual. Why is Apple supposed to even care that he doesn't control the other account anymore? He's supposed to control the account, according to the terms of service he agreed to. If he doesn't control it and he doesn't want to be responsible, he has to close it.
Apple is giving him the opportunity to get back to having a business relationship, but he doesn't understand the problem. Apparently, neither do many of the other users on here. Apple has every right to terminate their business relationship,so how is it blackmail? It's more like a plea bargain...
Completely, 100% agree with galacticpony. This whole story sounds suspect and I'm falling square on Apple's side here. Kapeli set up a relative with a developer account AND that relative was involved in fraudulent activity that benefits Kapeli and/or damages his competitors? Either Kapeli is lying and did set up his relative to help him out with fraudulent reviews, or he was so negligible so as to risk damage to his status with Apple by hooking up an untrustworthy relative and then felt like he had every right to act indignant when Apple called him out on it AND gave him a chance to make it right?
This may be hard to relate to from a First World context, but Kapeli lives in Romania where only 27% of the population owns bank accounts yet alone credit cards.[1] In many parts of the world, financial products are shared by families, even extended families.
This does not completely absolve Kapeli, but the bigger problem here is that Kapeli is (was) a top developer on Apple's platform and had oodles of credibility. He deserved a better investigation than Apple gave him, and to at least have his own ("linked") account notified of the problem before getting banned.
No excuse, sorry, especially since it's not at all clear that he's not lying. I'm not saying he is but it can't be ruled out. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, if it's true that he did innocently help out a relative and had absolutely no idea what that person was up to, then why not show some contrition and just get the problem resolved?
If I bring my cousin with me to a party at a friend's house and he trashes the place and gets into fights, you can sure bet I'm going to be apologizing like heck to the host, cleaning the place up, and trying to make things right. Would all people do that? Maybe not ... but don't go complaining that the host never invited you back if you didn't.
Why didn't they contact his "primary" account via its registered email address? They shut down two accounts but only contacted the first. The analogy would be better as I'm invited to a party and I bring my cousin. I leave after an hour. My cousin causes a bunch of damage to the host's place after I leave. Then two years later the host comes to my place of business and burns it to the ground and says I should've listened to the demands they made to my cousin over the last two years.
That is a bad analogy. This is case of mistaken identity, not a bad referral. Ask yourself, why are not giving this respected developer the benefit of the doubt?
A better analogy would be: You loaned your underage friend your ID 4 years ago and forgot about it. They proceeded to behave badly at a bar over a period of years without your knowledge. Then the bar owner confuses your identity based solely on that ID, despite your picture looking nothing like them and you being a well known and respected regular, and bans you without notice. Then they admit it wasn't you that trashed the place, but won't let you in until you state that the bar made no mistake in confusing you for that person.
This is also a bad analogy. The other account who is supposedly outside of the control of Kapeli, is involved in thousands of fraudulent ratings manipulations of Kapeli's apps. How likely is it that if the account were so totally out of Kapeli that this cousin would waste their time doing this? It's highly unlikely.
Not Kapeli's apps. There is no indication that there were fraudulent reviews of Dash, nor would it even make sense for there to be since it's so popular. Kapeli's own account was only used for Dash.
Please read and listen again. He did not register the account, nor use his credentials (if he had, apple's contact attempts would've reached him). He only paid for it, and donated hardware.
The bank account used is credentials and Apple considers both accounts to belong to (quote) "the same legal entity" based on that fact. This is the way Apple conducts business.
"This is the way Apple conducts business" is not a justification for conducting business that way.
Kapeli is in Romania where credit card ownership is less common, and the "legal entity link" we're talking about is just a nominal $99/fee and some older devices. Moreover, Apple is admitting they they see them as distinct accounts, only notified one of them, and completely ignored the fact that Kapeli's side of the linked accounts had high credibility.
It sounds like Apple is desperately trying to justify the not-very-smart algorithm of an automated "booter" program rather than giving Kapeli the respect and due diligence that he deserves as a top developer.
No. You can use a different bank account to get paid and use a different name for your developer account from credit card used. You can even use a prepaid credit card(But you have to provide ID). In this case, it's clear that the account names were different. Also it seems the bank accounts to get payment from apple were different(Otherwise they would mention it). And the only links were the credit card and some devices(only apple and the developer know how many devices and in some extent)
It is certainly knowable that the identity on the credit card is part of the verification process and that it must match his own. If the name he entered wasn't his own, the verification would likely have been denied:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6238222?tstart=0
That's why I'm suspicious as to which name he actually entered.
In this case, it seems the two accounts used different names otherwise they would mentioned it already because it's huge evidence that the accounts are linked.
In the U.S., you can add authorized users to your credit cards, and they typically send you new cards that just have a different name, but for which the rest of the information is identical (same number, same CVV code, same expiration).
At least this was the case with the cards issued for authorized users I added to my Citi Double credit card account.
So you could have a single card number with multiple valid names/users.
I think I'm much less invested in this than you two but I can say that it would strike me as very unusual to pay for someone else's account with Apple.
For example, Mithaldu, if an anonymous outsourcing party rendered you a service, than rather than wire them money or pay via paypal, would you be okay with paying for an apple account with them, with no further relationship, and you don't even know who they are? Probably not.
I think we can all agree that yes, he "should have" thought about this implication of trust.
From his response "helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple’s Developer Program Membership using my credit card. I also handed her test hard"
It was a relative, so I don't get your question's relevance to the situation.
sorry, I missed that part. I straight-up don't believe that their relative engaged in fraudulent activity related to Dash (such as leaving negative reviews of competitors) by complete coincidence and at arm's length. I didn't read all the information carefully though.
> I straight-up don't believe that their relative engaged in fraudulent activity related to Dash (such as leaving negative reviews of competitors) by complete coincidence and at arm's length
You might want to read the rest, the relative was boosting their own apps. Dash was not part of scenario just affected by the end result.
You missed the other discussion which mentions he's Romanian, and very few Romanians have their own banking services, and in fact share banking services among family members.
Last time I bought a dev account to the App Store I had to pay with a credit card in my name. My employer was willing to pay for it and would have preferred to pay on the company credit card but the App Store explicitly didn't allow 3rd party payment.
According to this, it's fine to use another person's CC as long as you provide govt id such that they can tie your account to a real person (and not the CC).
That's your interpretation of an ambiguous sentence. If your interpretation was correct, shouldn't the person you replied to have been informed of that possibility?
> He has registered an account using his credentials
Where are you getting that? In his blog posts, he only mentioned the common thing between the accounts were his credit card and old test devices he handed off - how do those qualify as "his credentials"? He explicitly mentioned he wasn't aware that his account and his alleged relatives account were linked until after his account was blocked.
You are right - he doesn't understand the problem - and neither do I. With the information that I have so far, it seems that Apple has set the bar for guilt too low, and the whole process is extremely opaque.
How is this a personal attack? It simply acknowledges that both of these websites are written by individuals. Would the substance of the comment be different had he simply used the website's names?
What is the appropriate phrasing, then? "This website is a surrogate for apple that posts their press releases without analysis?" I just don't see what the practical difference is: we're all adults, we know the point that's trying to be made.
I love apple products, have for 31 years but the guy is pretty biased towards Apple. He writes some interesting stuff but this article for instance is basically just repeating back whatever their PR flack said.
I have yet to work for a company where posting fake reviews on our applications wasn't the norm. Most users (myself included) can't be bothered to write a brand new review every time an app updates.
You know it's bad when Gruber's blog is being held up as a less biased alternative. He's been so soft on them lately on anything except the Watch, even then he's been pretty soft.
It's worse on Windows, where Git tools (including some from Microsoft themselves!) expect to see a .ssh folder in your user folder root. Wrong. Bad. Windows doesn't work that way! There's not even any contract/guarantee the user folder root is writable by the user in Windows! Sigh.
Can confirm. Installing Git (or SSH) on Windows is frustrating beyond belief. I can't seem to ever get the .ssh folder in the correct place and when I do it doesn't make any sense (from a Windows standpoint). Grrrr...
