I believe it is because it includes a suite of enterprise management features in addition to Gmail-related features. (Search for "google basic mobile device management" for more info.)
As someone not very familiar, is there any legitimate reason why they say "Our Apple signing/notarization is not entirely done yet"?
It feels extremely suspicious, given that I download lots of other popular utility software from independent devs and I've never had to do that before.
As a platform that basically started as a way to watch Youtube without tracking and ads, I think Grayjay should be sceptical of any third party code signing validation requirements. The copyright lobby has gone after software and its distributors before, even if it doesn't inherently pirate any content without user configuration.
I don't know why this app would need Apple's signature in the first place, seeing as it's not distributed through the app store. Is this like how you need to pay for a certificate to make the "are you sure you want to run this" prompt look less scary?
There are certainly valid, conflicting opinions around signing/notarization requirements for software. But notarization does provide end users with some safety guarantees that legitimately make running the software less risky. The scariness of "are you sure you want to run this" prompts is fairly grounded in real risk assumed by the end user.
There are a couple of legitimate reasons, namely the expense/KYC process of an Apple Developer Program membership and/or the complexity of integrating signing + notarization into existing build pipelines (but XCode does makes it pretty straightforward to cut an ad-hoc release that is signed and notarized).
In my opinion at least, the most likely reason is that Apple is refusing to notarize the software. If this is the case, people really should not be running it.
Apple refusing to notarize it actually makes me want to use it more. That means Rossmann and his associates have got under Apple's skin enough that they would try to sabotage projects that he is involved with.
Do you also suggest never releasing any software for Linux because there is no megacorporation there policing what software you should and shouldn't run?
I don’t think this analogy is quite correct. Driving on a particular route is not a driver’s objective like reading a particular book is a reader’s objective. The driver’s objective is arriving at a destination. The objective in driving is not a finite resource, but the multiple route options to the objective can be, which differs substantially from a library queue.
Let's consider a library with both a manned librarian and a self checkout, two different queues, same objective. Let's call the self checkout the 'highway' queue and the manned one the 'surface street' queue. Each of which could be expanded to improve throughput (more lanes:more self checkout lanes, more streets:more librarians).
Ultimately the problem with anti-car rhetoric is that it seeks to limit access to the objective because it is "wrong" to use a self checkout lane and people must be forced to check books out in the morally correct manner.
No one (reasonable) has a problem with the library adopting a mobile checkout app, which let's call mass transit. But crippling self checkout to force adoption of the mobile checkout app could be at best described as a 'dark pattern', forcing people to check out books 'the right way' at the cost of overall readership.
I believe there is way too much value judgement placed here.
If you have two checkouts, people will use whichever one is faster (assuming everything else is equal). Make one faster, and people will shift from one line to the other. Though, to make it an even better analogy, make one line shorter, and people will start coming in from off the street rather than switching lines.
A much better example - telecommuting. IF commute is bad, one is strongly incentivized to have some work-from-home days. If the commute time is improved, then that incentive disappears and one would then consider commuting daily.
Induced demand I think is generally all about the idea that when something is painful - people don't do it. Take away that pain point, and people come. I don't begrudge people too much for driving, as an example I'll note I do my errands on a bicycle. As such, I'm strongly incentivized to make many stops and fewer trips. Meanwhile, I've noticed that people in my family will make a car trip errand as soon as the need comes up. "Oh, I need to go to the grocery store." They get back, then realize they also needed to go to the hardware store, drive out again real quick and back when had there been more planning, the two trips could have been combined. Switching to a bike is an extreme example to avoid the excessive/unnecessary trips that are made simply because it is so convenient. If the drive time were tripled, then there might be a behavior shift to group errands together. Why do so though if it takes just a few minutes to make the individual trips? Eventually the cost of the trip is sufficient that a person will start conserving, avoiding that cost (which can be: travelling in off-hours, grouping trips together, not doing a trip altogether, finding a different mode of transport, removing the trip by moving, etc...)
The people who freely use terms like "anti-car" always assume that the car is always the fastest most efficient way of getting anywhere... and then sit stuck in standstill on a 6-10-lane highway
Ah, I think i just realized how to fix the analogy!
The issue is with how many books are checked out a time. If the line is absurdly long, at some point you will make fewer trips to the library to avoid paying the cost of waiting in line. You would check out more books so you would go less frequently. You would be trading storage space at home in exchange for time (not having to wait in line). If the line were infinitely fast, then why not go to the library exactly after you have finished one book to then go get one new book.
If an automated checkout then exists, the line time would be less, making it less expensive to go to the library, which means a person would be willing to increase their trip frequency to the library. Suddenly, you have a line full of people all checking out exactly one book, and returning the next day to do the same thing again (rather than checking out one weeks worth of books, and coming back a week later instead of the next day).
I think that's a fair extension of the analogy, from which I would make two observations:
First is that with frictionless checkout the library's efficiency is maximized (books are only checked out when being read and people's time isn't spent unproductively).
Second is that there is a limit to the demand of the library. A book will be finished before checking out a new one and a person can only read so many books a day. No matter how entertaining there is a fairly hard cap based on a persons need to sleep and reading rate. So a library would only ever need enough automated checkout lanes to match the populations awake time and reading rate before book demand is fully sated.
I really appreciate the dialog! I find your observations interesting.
Though, I do think you might be overemphasizing the number of checkout lanes.
To torture the analogy, let's consider the variables at play:
- how often a person goes to the library
- how many books they check out at a time
- how long they wait to checkout (we can potentially include travel time with this number, and this number is a function of the number of checkout lines)
- how many books can a person use at a given time (can a person read 3 books at a time?)
- how fast a person consumes books
- what is the max number of books that can be transported
- what is the max number of books that can be stored
The variables of "how many times do you go to the library" and "how many books do you get each time", and the cost to do so - "the time to check out", I think are the 3 really interesting variables to demonstrate induced & latent demand. The others are a factor, but we can hold them constant in order to demonstrate the relationship of the other three.
Diving in now - latent demand are people who would rather not read at all rather than spend more time than X waiting to check out. If the time to check out decreases, some people will start making the trip - this is latent demand.
As time to check-out decreases further, some people will start making multiple trips instead of just one - this is induced demand. The people making multiple trips are still checking out the same number of books overall - illustrating there is demand for high frequency and not just an absolute number of books. If all you wanted was 'X' many books, why take more than one trip to get them? The frequency provides flexibility and relieves other costs (carry capacity cost & storage cost).
For example, an expedition to antarctica would be very willing to pay a high cost to have a high carry capacity in order to transport a lot of food (they'll buy a literal boat to carry it) and another high cost to store it (storage space is not free). The expedition is willing to pay these costs because the cost to get more food is so high.
One can also ponder, why not get a lifetime supply of books from a library (ignoring late fees)? To one extent, fitting that many books in your arms and then getting them to your home, and then storing them are costs. Why do that when you could make another trip a week later?
Though, let's say for some reason you knew this was your last ever trip to a library. In this case, you would be highly incentivized to invest in higher carry capacity (eg: rent a truck) and to also invest in storage for the books. (Or, the person would be very incentivized to find alternatives). The really interesting part of induced demand IMO is that typically for existing road resources, we are pretty well into the state where many people would prefer to make more trips than they do today. So when we think about the inverse, as travel costs go down, the incentives to carry more and store more go down - which results in more trips being made. As more trips are made by more people, congestion increases, which creates a balancing effect and a steady state of traffic congestion. Naturally, other factors can break the steady state, the fact there is this counter-balancing force is the (IMO) interesting part of induced demand.
In your example, replacing bulky self-checkout machines (analogous to removing road/surface parking real estate) offers a significant benefit to everyone. More room for what everyone actually wants most: books. The preference for self-checkout machines forces a cost on everyone for the benefit of a few.
And in a lot of cases it does, but the important point is that the argument needs to be framed as you've put it: how do we get everyone what the most of what they want [transportation/books]? Most cost efficiently being implied of course. Being dogmatically "anti" or "pro" anything is looking at the problem wrong.
To the specific example, removing self checkout lanes makes sense if the removal adds more value than the lanes were providing, but not if they are providing more value than their opportunity cost -- perhaps because of woefully understaffed registers and a buggy mobile checkout app the self-checkout machines are responsible for a large portion of checkouts. Which would make them counter productive to remove.
And since the self checkouts exist, there is no interest in paying to have librarians at the register, or drivers on buses; so the self checkout is the excuse for not providing a librarian, which effectively cuts off some users from checking out books at all.
If you are stuck in gridlock in a two hour commute with a soulless car that functions as nothing more than an appliance, then sure, that sounds like my personal version of hell. But for me “The driver’s objective is arriving at a destination.” couldn’t be more of a false statement.
Give me a nice European sports car, a manual transmission, an empty highway and some nice scenery and commuting can be an incredibly relaxing experience. Even when I lived in the Bay Area commuting this way off-peak was awesome. In fact the commute was the highlight of my day.
Same minus the highway (sports car != touring car). Well, Except that I have it: depressed man driving a new MX-5 in the south of France, driving is one of my last joys in life together with food and sleep.
1p has some native support for hardware keys (https://support.1password.com/security-key/), but you can always use Yubico Authenticator for any applications that force you to use TOTP.
I see. They didn't mention it on the two factor authentication page I was reading because they've split the security key and TOTP documentation and not made it obvious (enough for me to see it while skimming) how to find the former from the latter.
The lack of DMARC records, even if it could facilitate spoofing, won’t magically make reply emails addressed at a valid @harvard.edu address land in a spoofer’s inbox. A different Reply-To address is possible but then you can’t claim a lack of warning signal. There’s something else going on.
Wow, very surprised to see no DMARC records in place for harvard.edu or their various subdomains. It may be possible that a single DNS record could have prevented this whole madness.
A single DNS record and distributing the signing key to probably thousands of machines able to send mail, some of which are probably 30 years old and unable to do the dmarc crypto...
