There's plenty of doubledeck blackjack with good penetration in Vegas, especially in high limits rooms. The problem nowadays is that the casinos are also counting, and the patterns are simple and easy to track with the tech we all have. Changing your bet even a couple times based on the count can have the pit boss getting a call to remove you.
It doesn’t follow at all that a worse time for developers means worse apps or less-happy consumers. Any time Apple enforces any kind of standard it’s “worse for developers”. I’m sure lots of developers are annoyed with Apple’s approach to fine-grained and highly visible app permissions, and wish they could just have full access to the user’s device. Screwing those people over is obviously good.
> It doesn’t follow at all that a worse time for developers means worse apps or less-happy consumers
Sure, it's not guaranteed to be a net positive for consumers but it's correlated.
Admittedly not exactly the same, but the Sega Saturn had trouble attracting developers because it was really difficult to develop on, despite the hardware being pretty good. As a result, people who bought a Saturn ended up getting fewer and worse versions of games.
I agree that they shouldn't necessarily always always do everything to appeal to developers, there's a balance, and I'm not suggesting that we get rid of community guidelines and the like, I'm just saying that the more difficult it is for a developer (or anyone) to do something, the less likely they are to do a good job at it, if they do it at at all. Worse apps means a worse experience.
That's absolutely not true. Developers can and often do have a hostile relationship with consumers who use their software. The most obvious example of this is malware developers. Operating systems and software distribution platforms often have rules to prevent malware. That's clearly a restriction on developers but (if done well) it means better apps for consumers. I think the same can be said for less obvious cases, like adware, tracking, shady free trial or subscription plans, bait and switch pricing in e-commerce, and many other antipatterns or dark patterns.
> That's an easy opinion to have when it's not your livelihood.
Isn't this sensationalist?
Developers, just like Apple or any other software maker, can be incentivized to work _against_ the consumer. PC on '00s had many developers whose livelihood compelled them to bundle their apps as "free trials" in PCs. As a user, I had to deal with pop-up after pop-up asking me to buy the full thing; each of those apps took up disk space, power and, most importantly, my brain cells. ugh.
Developer livelihoods are not as important as a frustration-free user experience.
I appreciate that Apple's high bar makes it harder for all iOS developers to make a living. However, with all respect, there might just be too many iOS developers.
Apple setting an increasingly high quality bar that weeds out the bottom 90% of all iOS developers might seem draconian for anyone weeded out but this is competition at its finest. It is how markets in general ensure the best quality product.
Obviously, there is also the matter of "How much should Apple get paid to enforce these policies? Is 30% too high for in-app-purchases?" those are good numbers to negotiate. But frankly all non-FOSS software products I've encountered before and after iOS continually proved they need developer policies to ensure they are built to be long-term customer centric.
Many people's livelihood is malware development, probably including many people who think it's unethical and would prefer to have another livelihood if there was an option. I genuinely feel bad for those people, but I still think blocking malware is the right decision for an OS or software distribution platform.
If your livelihood relies on, say, gambling for 10 year olds, or rooting around in my personal information without my knowledge or meaningful consent, then I will be delighted for you to starve in a gutter.
Okay, to be pedantic because your comment didn’t provide full details:
The $1200 went to adults who were not dependents of someone else and who earned less than a certain threshold, with the amount prorated depending on your AGI and your tax filing type (single, married, head of household).
My point was that everyone qualified for it. It wasn’t dependent on losing your job first. You could keep your job and still receive the (up to) $1200 stimulus if your income met the thresholds.
Part of the problem is that many people lost their jobs and were/are unemployed for months, but had a tax filing in a prior year above a threshold disqualified them from receiving the $1200.
