I expect inflation to remain high for a while, and I think concerns about it (if not for self-fulfilling psychological, which are very real and significant) are overblown. I think this stimulus, and the resulting inflation, DID help the economy, relative to the alternatives. The critical thing was to avoid structural damage:
- Businesses going under
- People losing jobs
- Mortgages going under
... and so on. All of this DOES directly impact the productive output of the economy.
Inflation does distort the economy a little bit. It makes some of us poorer (those with cash), some of us richer (those with debt), and leaves some neutral (this with hard assets). But I think this distortion pales relative to the alternative.
Business is going under is actually a good thing. It frees up market space for new entrepreneurs and new businesses to be able to get going and make newer better offerings. The last two recessions all of the big companies have been bailed out, which means that we have the same bad practices and bad CEOs still in charge of our economy. Let them go bankrupt and then we will have fresh ground for entrepreneurs to flourish.
>Let them go bankrupt and then we will have fresh ground for entrepreneurs to flourish.
I agree to this in some contexts, but I also think it's sometimes used with too broad of a brush. It seems to ignore the time lag that means sometimes things can get really bad before they get better. Sure, allowing banks and automotive manufacturers to go under could create "fresh ground for entrepreneurs to flourish." But it could also create decades of depression/recession effects before that flourishing happens. We're currently seeinng the supply chain effects that people didn't really anticipate well. As someone from the rust belt, there are an awful lot of tangentially related manufacturers who will also go away with the automotive sector, which has ripple effects in a ton of other industries. Protracted economic depressions tend to create "fresh ground" for despots to "flourish" as well.
Imagine you're a business with 5 million dollars in revolving debt, at a 2% interest rate. You have $100k in debt service costs.
If interest rates go up to 5%, you have $250k in service costs. Most businesses operate close to break-even (in efficient markets), and many will immediately go under. If businesses go under, that triggers a recession cycle: Those businesses lay off employees, who stop buying, driving down revenue for everyone else. People anticipating layoffs/furloughs/etc. stop buying. Hiring goes down too, since businesses start planning for rough times.
People buying on credit (anyone with a credit card debt) also find purchasing much more expensive, together with higher bills on existing debt.
A whole bunch of business opportunities also disappear in a poof of smoke. If a business has even a 1% expected real return, and interest rates are zero, it makes sense to borrow money to start that business (especially if inflation is also high, giving effective negative interest rates). If a business has an expected 1% return and interest rates are 12%, then I'm bleeding money. For these kinds of opportunities, think less SV startup, and more just normal businesses (e.g. I buy something and sell it a month or two later).
My understanding bonds are mostly fixed rate. Their price on market can vary though. But unlike let's say mortages they are more often refinanced. And when that happens the rates can change.
I'm not even sure that its true to a meaningful degree - at least in the US, large businesses dominate economically and are quite profitable (much better than "break even"). Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, JP Morgan - they are not going to "go under" if interest rates go up 0.25%, even though they all use corporate debt.
- We're borrowing money, and we'll need to pay it back. That's scary.
- Money is bits in a computer, and from the perspective of the US government, it's like video game currency. Debts and deficits are fiscal instruments.
Which of these is correct, or something else, is TBD. I think a big part of the question is who holds the debt. I'm a lot more worried about foreign debt, and I'm a lot less worried about debt as a financial instrument to pay interest on de facto savings accounts.
The 3rd option is that government is forced to keep interest rates near 0 forever, coupled with high inflation to keep debt levels in check. Onslaught of increasing wealth inequality continues into the future as the country declines into a Japan style economy of stagnation.
As much as I like the change, the 3-month window seems unreasonable. I don't currently have AppStore apps, and these kinds of whiplash changes are part of the reason.
Microsoft, for all its faults, is much better than Apple or Google here.
Businesses take planning and strategy, and these things lead to drop-everything fires.
To be fair, it's closer to 4 months, and it would appear that they won't yank you immediately. It's only for new submissions:
> This requirement applies to all app submissions starting January 31, 2022.
Unsure if this means new apps, or includes updates to existing apps. But I bet there'll be a bit more of a grace period if you don't have a new update to push.
Plus, “initiate deletion of their account from within the app” sounds like the app can simply link to whatever account deletion functionality you have on your website.
I don't think that's right, but the policy and the article doesn't answer these questions particularly well, so it's very much up to interpretation... The problem with linking to a website is that it doesn't make anything better for the user, since that could be either directing to a form, a support phone number or mail. Neither which improve the situation because the user is not in control.
if you provide a good and easy sign in functionality from your app, through native UI and the like, then you should be able to provide the same functionality for deleting that same account. That is at least what we have recommended one of our clients, but that client is also a public transport company, so they can't afford to be in gray area where the app is either rejected or taken down.
I remember that change. I wondered at the time why people were not more concerned about what that change meant. I guess people either didn't fully apprehend the implications, or maybe they thought Apple wouldn't follow through?
Apple considers 3 months their standard level of advance notice, with WWDC serving as your warning and the release of iOS in September as the go-live date.
However, in this case, they have ended up giving you 6 months and a courtesy reminder.
If you aren’t interested in maintaining your app annually, don’t publish apps on Apple’s store.
Whether or not their level of notice is enough, they’ve been consistent for years in this practice of 3 months notice for significant and breaking changes, and they seem comfortable compelling annual updates from developers. I would not expect them to care that 3 months is difficult in your circumstances, as they assume you’re prepared to maintain your app and proactively keep up with policy changes over time. It sounds like you did not attend to this year’s policy updates and may well have been out of compliance for months now. Fortunately, they offered a grace period rather than just refusing your next bugfix update. Lucky you!
(I am not sympathetic to your situation, because as a user of apps, I am exhausted of crappy apps and bottom-of-the-barrel behaviors from developers. I understand that others may feel otherwise, and that’s fine too, just as long as those feelings do not get in the way of being a responsive app developer.)
> If you aren’t interested in maintaining your app annually, don’t publish apps on Apple’s store.
That's exactly what I do. I avoid the app stores like the plaque.
> (I am not sympathetic to your situation, because as a user of apps, I am exhausted of crappy apps and bottom-of-the-barrel behaviors from developers. I understand that others may feel otherwise, and that’s fine too, just as long as those feelings do not get in the way of being a responsive app developer.)
I think the word here is 'entitled.' There are a few different groups here:
- Bottom-of-the-barrel scammers, whom I have no sympathy to
- Little kids and amateurs, who might want to put something out and move on
- Graduate students and research projects
- Little not-for-profits
- Internal-use small businesses and enterprise apps, where a they might be developed once and forgotten about for decades (yes, plural)
In my case, I don't need to have an app on the app store, and I don't care for Apple's behavior, so I don't have an app there. That hurts Apple (and you, if you're an iPhone user) more than it does me.
You're also confusing strictness with timelines. I'm all for super-strict policies. Just with:
- Backwards compatibility (e.g. grandfathering) of older apps
If you think requiring the ability to delete your account is "developer hostile", you're exactly why this provision needs to exist. Apple is giving you six months to stop fucking your users. Sorry not sorry :\
> You have to be crazy to stake your company on apple's goodwill at this point
My company has an app on the app store. We do a few hundred million dollars in sales via the app. Are we crazy?
If you could make an extra hundred million dollars by fucking over users, some would say you are crazy not to, yes. Opinions vary, but that's sort of the essence of it.
Nah, I think being forced to implement it within 3 months is hostile. I think Apple refusing to send announcements through the mail is hostile.
Apps are just a single frontend to a larger system, and Apple thinks they can dictate the workings of that entire system just because you want to let users access your system from an Apple device. It's bonkers.
Imagine microsoft going: "Microsoft edge will refuse to render your website unless there is a "delete account button". How would that make you feel?
I feel like they should be a lot more up front and plainly spoken about the maintenance burden of publishing on the app store.
But I don't think it's particularly hostile. I think it's just that their focus on user experience requires them to accept the punishing annual cycle for developers.
You’re also responsible for supporting new hardware and responding to security problems and other bugs. If you can’t be bothered to implement a rather straightforward feature like account deletion in three months I don’t really have a problem with you being excluded from the App Store
User accounts tend to be a central part of any application that stores data somewhere, and is prone to custom logic and assumptions. From experimental todo list apps to POS management software.
I can’t imagine account deletion is straightforward for most of the implementation, even just from a legal standpoint when money changing hands is involved.
I think it’s a complicated enough issue that it should be tackled from the start (which is usually the case) and kept track of as the product/service evolves.
If you've been based in the EU or offering services to EU customers you should already have the possibility to delete accounts as that's a requirement of the GDPR, so 3 months to expose the existing functionality to the user sounds more than enough.
Well, modules can be designed to protect my security, or to harm my security (e.g. to enforce DRM). I'm unclear on how "real TPM" functionality helps me. If it helps secure Microsoft, and hurts my security, that's a good reason to not use Windows.
I have not found good docs on what TPM exactly does in Windows 11, but people I trust tell me to distrust it, so I do.
It’s used to store BitLocker (Full Disk Encryption) keys so you don’t have to type a password for the system to boot. If you don’t use BitLocker, it’s not used for much else.
One could conclude that they are requiring TPM so they can eventually turn on BitLocker by default.
You end up with a large segment of the population who sneezes a little bit, which is sort of annoying but sort of okay.
You end up with a small segment of the population with asthma attacks, anaphylaxis, and other life-threatening conditions.
Universal use of dogs would mean that there would be people who simple cannot travel, ever, anywhere beyond driving distance.
There's a small war between extremist dog-owners (the ones who believe dogs are people too, and sneak them into all sorts of places dogs aren't allowed as "activism") and people with severe allergies.
I have never heard of any life-threatening allergic reaction to any drug or bomb sniffing dog. Has that actually happened? If so...how, when, and where?
Asthma attacks are not uncommon in response to dog dander. Those can be life-threatening, but can be managed with albuterol. 30 seconds with Google will turn up countless documented instances.
Anaphylaxis is a very rare response to animal dander, but there have been a few documented instances:
What's amazing is the number of dog owners who don't believe in dog allergies, or who believe their dogs are hypoallergenic due to fur/hair (dander is in the saliva).
> dogs are hypoallergenic due to fur/hair (dander is in the saliva)
I’ve read the same explanation for cats. But, I find it hard to believe. Pets are constantly licking their fur, and shedding said fur all over the place. It’s very clear to me that more fur = higher chances of allergic reactions.
1) That a lot of allergic reactions come from actually touching a dog or having the dog touch something; they don't need to leave fur behind for that to happen.
2) That licking hair/fur releases the same amount of dander, whether your shedding fur, hair, or neither. Matter is conserved.
Those are fair points, but I’m not convinced that fur doesn’t have an impact.
Anecdotally, I have a mild cat allergy and own a cat. Vacuuming our sofa regularly makes a huge difference, as it gets rid of the fur stuck to it. It goes from feeling scratchy to totally fine.
Maybe clumps of fur are common with super fluffy pets? Ours is a shorthair and shedding leaves single hairs lying around.
Matter is conserved, sure, but fur with dander stuck to it from saliva versus skin with saliva on it, surely makes a difference?
I'm less concerned about fur with dander stuck to it then simply furniture with dander stuck to it.
Three things to consider:
1) You can't see dander.
2) Vacuuming helps with pollens, and with dander from animals without fur too.
3) You have mild allergies. Others have stronger ones. I have no scientific basis for this, but I suspect sometimes, the immune system goes into maximum overdrive.
Countless documented instances of asthma induced by the dander of drug/bomb sniffing dogs or just dogs in general? I have asthma and have occasionally reacted to animal dander—but never in an airport or other location due to service animals.
I don't think there is a database of allergic reactions people have had. They just happen and people move on. If the question is narrow enough, e.g., "Has there ever been anaphylaxis in response to a dog named Woofers jumping on a 12-year-old girl in New York's Central Park?" the answer will be "No."
However, there have been plenty of instances of severe asthmatic reactions to dogs in situations in all relevant respects similar to drug/bomb-sniffing animals. And I've seen plenty of allergic reactions to service animals.
People react to different amounts of allergens. For some, it requires direct contact. For others, it's enough to be in vaguely the same room.
Service animals are tougher, since both sides have a disability and medical need. Police dogs should be easier, if not for police generally being power-hungry thugs.
- Businesses going under
- People losing jobs
- Mortgages going under
... and so on. All of this DOES directly impact the productive output of the economy.
Inflation does distort the economy a little bit. It makes some of us poorer (those with cash), some of us richer (those with debt), and leaves some neutral (this with hard assets). But I think this distortion pales relative to the alternative.