> you have to design to a lowest-common-denominator that balances
Something that's always stuck with me is a bit from the book "Don't Make Me Think" about cost vs. value in attention and complexity, that when you add a feature used by only a small percentage of users you're "taxing" 100% of users for the benefit of a few. That you should optimize for the common path and not edge cases. Over two decades later I still find this an exceedingly difficult challenge to juggle that doesn't just mean hiding advanced features behind extra menus.
Menus, gestures, keyboard shortcuts, advanced versions of the interface locked behind preferences, and fully customizable menus (including user-defined macro buttons). There are a ton of ways to hide the complexity for common users without frustrating power users. The challenge for the designer is the taste/judgement to know which features to show/hide and where (as well as how to organize all the menus logically).
Judges in Spain are not part of the government ("Gobierno"). They are part of the Poder Judicial, the judiciary. The Spanish Constitution separates these clearly, give it a skim if you haven't already.
That's not what the constitution says though. "Government" ("Gobierno") is what an American would understand "executive branch" to be, I'm guessing this is why it's confusing. I tried to make it easier by adding the translations, but maybe that's just making it more confusing :)
I guess broadly in English you'd say the judges are part of the state, but they're not a part of the Spanish Government.
What matters is what the OP was communicating with it, and in English it means all state bodies responsible for administration. No one would argue the US Supreme Court is not part of the government.
No. That's what it means in the USA. Judges are not part of the government in the UK, Ireland, Australia, or New Zealand either. They're part of the State.
You and others are confusing definition for meaning. An HN rule asks people to engage with the best interpretation of someones argument, in which case it's very clear what the OP was communicating by using "government" where you might use "state", and it's clear from responses that folks clearly know that but have decided to argue over pointless semantics that engage with the posters meaning. Not a single comment tried to engage with the comment with good intentions, so focused on "I gotcha!" vibes over unproductive pedantry. How pointless and petty.
Bit hard to get notified by the ISP if you effectively try to side-step the way they notify you, don't you think? Also bit weird to blame them for that.
If I recall correctly, if you try to access the IP directly you get the same notification. No football game on right now though so cannot check.
Edit: In fact, I'm not sure they do DNS filtering at all actually, it may be just based on IP, can't remember off-hand, considering the collateral damage, I'd say IP blocks mainly.
ISPs have your contact information, and they can also put up notices on their own website. Hijacking somebody else's website with forged replies isn't "the way they notify you," it's a man-in-the-middle attack, and users shouldn't be trained or encouraged to accept it.
> ISPs have your contact information, and they can also put up notices on their own website.
So whenever you see "Connection Refused" your instinct is to go to your ISPs website?
I also don't think it's "hijacking someone's website", then it'd be global, instead it is a man-in-the-middle attack, serving different traffic than the user intended.
Hijacking secured connections to inject a payload that doesn’t actually come from the source is not a legitimate form of notification - it’s a malicious infrastructure attack.
Torrent doesn't magically find peers, even with DHT the torrent files have seed nodes baked in. A middelman required for both the centralized trackers and trackerless torrents.
DHT seed nodes are optional. A torrent node that's already connected to the DHT doesn't need them. Most torrent software has some default nodes baked in, from which it can discover the whole DHT.
Apple could change the platform/firmware to break Asahi if they wanted to. They could lock down the hardware to make it nearly impossible to install another OS like they do with iphone.
No Mac in history has been locked down in the way you describe, and there's really no indication that Apple would start now. If they were ever going to, the ARM transition would've been the perfect time to do it, yet they invested engineering resources into adding support for booting non-Apple kernels into their bootloader.
They could of course release a new line of laptops or a firmware update tomorrow which locks down the bootloader and prevents booting non-Apple kernels. But so could Lenovo, Dell, HP, Samsung, Sony, or any other laptop vendor. Or Microsoft, Intel, AMD or Qualcomm could exert their influence, as owners of various parts of the ecosystem, to shift the PC landscape in that direction.
Most hardware vendors don’t make operating systems, so they are not incentivized to limit what software can run on the hardware.
For example, intel and AMD contribute a lot of code and engineering hours to open source projects because they WANT people to be able to run that software on their hardware.
What you're saying is true for phones too, yet phone manufacturers lock down their hardware to only allow it to run Google's operating system. The argument that "hardware manufacturers live by selling hardware and don't care what software customers run as long as it's on their hardware" clearly doesn't work.
But if you truly do believe that's a good argument, consider Microsoft's position. They wouldn't want you to run non-Windows operating systems and hold considerable power over the Windows PC ecosystem.
Sure, there is no legal issue with these contributions. The problem is why would a project like Debian spend a bunch of work stewarding the Asahi project when Apple can just make the project impossible to progress if they so desire? The Debian project already is strapped for resources to build their distribution and stewarding a possibly throw away project is probably not the best use of their time.
Your entire argument is based on a random hypothetical. Why should Debian steward any work if a meteor could collide with our planet and wipe out all life?
Are you making the argument that an extinction level meteor event is within the same realm as Apple deciding to lock down their hardware? It is called risk management, here is how it goes: The likelyhood that an earth ending meteor comes and destroys the earth is very very low and therefore Debian decides that they should still write software. On the other hand the likelyhood that Apple -- a for profit company -- locks down their laptop hardware like they do for iOS is much higher. Apple has a history of walled gardens and conceivably there could be profit motives to lock down the hardware. Given the risk, potential supporters of Asahi have to decide whether or not it is worth the risk of putting a bunch of time and money into the project.
> locks down their laptop hardware like they do for iOS is much higher.
Except you pulled this out of thin air. There's more evidence to support the earth will be wiped out by a meteor than their is evidence Apple will lock down their macOS hardware. Your entire argument is predicated on vibes.
> There's more evidence to support the earth will be wiped out by a meteor than their is evidence Apple will lock down their macOS hardware.
If you don’t think a for profit hardware company which also makes operating systems will never think about making it so only their software can run on their hardware, I don’t know what to say to you. They already do this with iphone/ios. It is possible they do with mac/osx. Im not saying it is guaranteed, I am saying it is possible. And I am also saying it is much more possible than a meteor wipes us out in my lifetime. If you disagree with that, fine.
I am pretty sure I will be vindicated by Asahi never being relevant.
They launched this platform with those restrictions, they didn't add them after the fact.
> I am saying it is possible
It's statistically less probable than a meteor wiping life on Earth - so my point stands that that Asahi team would be more concerned with a rogue orbital than it needs to be about Apple locking down the Mac ecosystem.
What does cutting corners have anything to do with the topic at hand? The situation isn't about devs getting the time to do something right, it's about programmers making a non-engineering decision that was overruled by the business in the businesses best interest. That's perfectly reasonable.
Based on what evidence? This is the "making things up" the reply alluded to. It's not even remotely obvious to me, and I disagree with your concussion. Hardware is 75% of Apple's revenue
> Claude Code is a subscription tier explicitly designed for agentic, automated, heavy usage
Except it's not. It's a desktop, web, mobile, and CLI subscription product built on top of a usage-based API with a generous token allowance bundled with it. That generous allowance comes with the restriction that those tokens can only be spent through Claude product surfaces. Why would Anthropic offer their API at a loss and subsidize the profits and growth of other businesses?
> no wonder performance is even better than in windows!
Every "benchmark" I've seen from someone claiming a game performs better on Linux via Proton than on Windows was written by someone that doesn't know anything about running benchmarks or how statistics work.
Something that's always stuck with me is a bit from the book "Don't Make Me Think" about cost vs. value in attention and complexity, that when you add a feature used by only a small percentage of users you're "taxing" 100% of users for the benefit of a few. That you should optimize for the common path and not edge cases. Over two decades later I still find this an exceedingly difficult challenge to juggle that doesn't just mean hiding advanced features behind extra menus.
reply