I think the argument against can be boiled down to this hypothetical analogy:
A few friends and I like your home better than ours. It's much nicer and safer than where we currently live, so we move into a few open bedrooms.
Now that we outnumber you and your family, we vote to change things in the common areas more to our liking. Some changes are small and happen over time, others more jarring and immediate. You like some of these changes in some cases, but sometimes quite the opposite.
Is it a foregone conclusion that this situation is for the greater good? If so, should your family be pressured or forced to accept?
Who has the power to make that determination?
After all, you were only there first so what gives you the right to prevent others from moving in?
---
Personally, I can see the argument for both sides.
I feel like the analogy isn't a service to the problem.
It's got all sorts of baggage and expectations pertaining to homeownership that don't carry over into migration. I feel it'd just be better to address the problem space directly and ask what specific problems you observe/predict with immigration.
The problem I'm inferring from your comment here would also seem to apply to families moving from Chicago to Boston. And what's funny is that people actually do complain about this (our mayor is from Chicago), but it's for nonsensical reasons in my experience.
>I feel it'd just be better to address the problem space directly
Fair enough. Not everyone enjoys naked cosmopolitanism. I don't live in New York City for a reason (I did at one point), and I don't live in the downtown of the city I live closest to (also did at one point, where I watched it change into something else). There are aspects of a nation that go beyond mere economic data, and longing for those things to remain stable and constant is a normal feeling and belief. When people talk about immigration as a mechanism to "solve" some problem, those other aspects get glossed over, usually pejoratively by calling everyone who doesn't agree with mass immigration a "racist" or a "bigot". Talking about Japan is an evocative example because it's so culturally distant from the west in ways that are obvious and stark. Thinking it wise that it changes to echo the mishmash that the west is becoming, in order to make some numbers in a spreadsheet go up, is in my estimation the more extreme position to stake out than simply observing that perhaps not all uniqueness was created equal. There's also the housing problem, where, for some reason, people pretend that this is the one instance in which the laws of supply and demand do not apply and large numbers of immigrants don't have an impact on the cost of housing.
>The problem I'm inferring from your comment here would also seem to apply to families moving from Chicago to Boston.
People complain about this because where you are from is a signal about having skin in the game. It's why politicians advertise their family ties to the place they are running to represent. I don't live in Boston, and am not that familiar with Mayor Wu. Maybe she'll run the city into the ground, maybe she won't. But if she does, she can always just go back to Chicago.
I'd also add here that it's really not even just about the greater good. There's something obviously unique and valuable about different places remaining different, rather than creating some sort of global homogeneity. Austin coined 'Keep Austin Weird' which Portland, and a handful of other such cities, then mimicked.
Of course it failed - the attractiveness of Austin, in part because of its distinct character, left it facing widespread 'migration' of a sort that the city was unaccustomed to dealing with, and it increasingly just looks like any other city. Identical to how if Japan starts opening the flood gates there will be all these people moving there because 'wow, Japan's so weird and unique' and soon enough e.g. Tokyo will look like any other city.
It could well be "better", by some metric or another, for Austin, Tokyo, and everywhere else to be basically the same, excepting some window dressing. But it sure creates a much more bland and less interesting world.
Personally I'd see it as a negative vs using an industry standard solution.
However, I'm sure some folks would be tempted to add something like "designed and implemented a distributed task scheduler and execution engine for generalized asynchronous jobs utilized by X number of devs across Y teams" to their resumes.
My question is on the line of do you think it's relevant enough so that it would deserve being added to a resume? Even if it's something you personally don't like.
Because I can't imagine why it would award that relevance. It's right there with "implemented function to reverse a list because the stdlib had a bug".
Apple defenders keep approaching these conversations like, "okay, you think you want to actually own your phone, but have you considered that sideloading would be just like <insert other awesome thing>?"
Nobody likes the pre-bundled garbage smart TV system; TVs where you can install arbitrary apps and use the same remote to operate them would be a better experience. As TVs have gotten more universal standards and APIs that any device can hook into, they've gotten better. We're all glad that TVs have arbitrary HDMI in, we like being able to use any game console with our TVs without needing to care about whether the console manufacturer has an agreement with the TV manufacturer, we don't like when we get a TV home and figure out it doesn't work with a service we already own.
"Apple is like those 'smart' TVs you buy where you get home and discover that for some bullcrap reason Youtube doesn't work and your home assistant can't control the volume" -- may not be the strong defense of Apple you think it is?
Do the people making these comparisons not understand that the comparisons all sound really good? It's like, "do you expect to be able to install any app on a console? Do you expect your smart phone hub to be able to work with any smart device? Or what, you buy an e-reader and expect to be able to just put any book on it?"
Yes, I do. I don't know, don't threaten me with a good time.
At least the security arguments make some sense, even an argument that Apple has some special right to profit off of "access to the users" is more defendable. But I feel sometimes like Apple apologists are living in an alternate world where they think that if Microsoft launched a console that could play both Xbox and PS5 games that consumers would all be saying, "we don't want that, that feature makes the Xbox worse."
Why do you have the expectation to install whatever you want on a smart TV? Just because there is a computer chip inside it?
I find it somewhat absurd that if you put a computer chip inside of a gadget you are now suddenly expected to support/enable installing literally anything.
If the consumer cares so much about that, they can buy something else.
> Just because there is a computer chip inside it?
Sort of, yes? I mean, if you've got a general purpose computing device stuck inside of a TV, it's kind of nice to be able to use it as a general purpose computing device.
And I mean, we have open standards for things. I'm not saying that companies should have to manually support everything, but if you ask me if it's a desirable feature or if it would be better for TVs to use common platforms that can be targeted regardless of hardware, what do you want me to say? That it's a bad thing if I can control the volume on my TV using a universal remote? That it's good that different smart assistants don't work with the same music services? Because having a smart assistant say that you can't use a music service because some CEOs got into a fight with each other actually stinks and I hate that.
> I find it somewhat absurd that if you put a computer chip inside of a gadget you are now suddenly expected to support/enable installing literally anything.
Okay, but you understand that every consumer would view that as a feature, right? You understand that when you say, "imagine if every app worked on your TV" pretty much everyone is going to say, "that sounds great, yes please."
Never before has any console or TV ever advertised less compatibility as if that is a desirable feature that customers should want. Never before has Microsoft gotten up on stage and said "we have a hundred launch titles" and then Playstation gotten on stage and said "hah, that's amateur talk, we have 45 launch titles, we're clearly winning this fight."
You're arguing that this is a slippery slope, but you're also arguing that there's chocolate cake and puppies at the bottom of the slope. Generally speaking, using cross-compatible standards that allow people to interop with devices without asking the manufacturer's permission is a thing that I want, yes. I like that cars use the CAN-BUS standard, that's a good regulation. I like that I can have 3rd-party repair shops for my car, I like that I can buy a stereo system and hook it up and it doesn't matter if the stereo manufacturer has an agreement with Toyota. I like that Samsung and LG TVs both use HDMI ports and I don't have to ask "which computers can I plug into this" when I buy a TV. And of course consumers generally like that we use universal USB standards now and we've gotten past every device having incompatible cords. These are all great things to have.
You can argue whatever you want, you can argue that this is an abridgement of Apple's rights. People might believe that.
But just be aware that your slippery slope sounds less like a slippery slope and more like some kind of prize, and if you're not careful people might start to say, "wait, you're saying that if we open up iOS devices we could then do the same thing to consoles, and I would stop needing to buy 3 separate consoles just to play different games? And I could buy cheap controllers instead of needing to spend 60-80 dollars for an official one? And I could play games with people who are on different consoles? So where do I sign up for that?"
Streaming services ARE paying TV manufactures for using their IP. Thats why all the TVs are becoming smart TVs - because someone signing up for Max (or Apple TV+) nets them a fairly profitable commission when you see how slim margins are for the bulk of television sales.
This is why smart TVs are becoming increasingly more annoying, because additional revenue streams are so highly desired. Display more in-interface ads, offer first party 'streaming' for the opportunity to display more ads, put movie purchases/rentals ever more prominently in your UI, always start in your menus rather than the last selected HDMI input, take metrics on what people are watching by default - I am surprised we don't have an Uber Eats button on the remote yet.
Interestingly, a TV manufacturer can't do anything to require a streaming service to provide _their_ IP. Netflix seems to have a policy of not allowing their app to run on projectors, keeping them out of the allow-list for downloads and for execution of the android app. Some projector manufacturers will ship a separate Chromecast dongle or the like so that they can say they support Netflix on the box.
By my logic, TV manufacturers can also charge TV app developers for the use of their IP if they so desire, yes.
I don’t see how that’s nonsense or hogwash. It’s a very basic concept since the dawn of men.
You want to use or own something I own or made, then I can ask you to pay for it.
In this instance it’s the frameworks and SDKs that were made and that others want to use.
In a similar fashion, they already extract payment in exchange for them featuring whatever app has decided to pay for that privilege.
Don’t see how that’s somehow morally better, nor do I see a legal hurdle.
>But it has an incredibly huge problem with a particular style of spam account that reposts old content on certain subreddits.
Well that's your problem right there. That type of spam boosts a number of activity and usage KPIs and increases engagement.
Reddit has even been caught using bots to artificially build out new subreddits by Google translating and reposting existing content from other subreddits to give the illusion of popularity in order to bootstrap new subs.
Why would they want to cut down on any of that when it would affect their bottom line?
>You do not want to know the level of architecture pumping away in the background that collects and correlates disparate data about you together. It's actually shocking how robust and complex it is. Trust me, I've seen it, they know almost everything about you consumption/location/device wise.
I do, and I suspect many others would like to know as well - please share!
All of this is based on the unsupported assumption that purity of vocabulary is some sort of virtue to strive for and that other speakers are responsible for protecting the listener from their subjective, personal hangups by adopting some subset of listeners preferred standard for language.
It's on that point that we, and I'd imagine the GP as well, strongly disagree.
Nonsense. You don't order pineapple on your pizza in Italy, you don't leave your dog's shit in your neighbor's yard, and you don't curse when you're trying to convince the investors, boards, and executives – the people with the real power to stop enshittification.
It's just about understanding cultural context in order to legitimatize your point. I feel like Doctorow would have learned that by now.
