Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | TillE's comments login

In some cases this winds up being an abdication of responsibility, as I've found the default can be mixed quite poorly, with eg music drowning out the dialogue. But it's certainly nice to have that control.

> Yeah, see - this isn't really your music collection then but reliance on Apple's Library and them "matching it" with what they have.

What? You just transfer your files directly, exactly as you could with an ancient iPod or whatever.

if i bought files from 7Digital or HDTracks - then how do i sync FLAC files to devices?

If there's no "file matching" service - how does the OP i'm responding to "upgrade" the sound quality of the files on the device?

No country is perfect, but French society is pretty notoriously sexist and racist.

Please do not post nationalistic flamewar comments to HN. It's one of the things we're trying to avoid here.


Likewise, I've attempted many self-published novels, some with high praise from independent readers, and found nearly all to be of miserably poor quality - Andy Weir being the sole exception.

Even if you have the bones of a good story, even if you're a talented writer, a good editing process can transform your work from an unreadable mess to an actual solid novel.

Editors does a lot less for quality of the writing than people tend to think.

Also, there’s nothing stopping someone self publishing from getting an editor to polish their manuscript before publication.

The truth is that most authors who self publish are simply not good at writing.

I am generally a fan of self publishing, it’s great for good writers as they get to keep more of the money and for the ones on the border it allows them to get something out there that might be good enough for a small audience.

Editors vary. A good editor can take something rough and polish it, retaining the voice of the author. A bad editor can suck all the life out of the writing, never having noticed the author’s voice in the first place.

It seems to me there has been a decline in the quality of editing by major publishers in recent years – though it may be that I have become better at noticing prose that would benefit from editing. Self-published stuff is normally worse, but it’s no surprise: hiring an editor would turn many self-published books from a modest profit to a heavy loss.

The thing is that writing can be bad in a multitude of ways, and a good editor can fix at least one of those — and, at the very least, help ensure that the ideas on paper are written according to the norms and conventions of the language.

We demand examples

Stephen king in his book on writing has some examples.

Managing a large project with basic tools is a nightmare, it also sucks for learning an API. I've tried to use VS Code for C++ and C# stuff, but it's such a poor tool compared to Visual Studio proper.

I don't feel I'm learning anything useful by wrestling with the fiddly JSON build configurations in VS Code.

Nerds always want to interpret the law in some strict pedantic fashion, but in practice this is almost never how it works. Law is not applied stupidly or mechanically, you can't fashion yourself some ad hoc workaround unless you're extremely certain about what you're doing, preferably with a mountain of precedent behind you.

"NSO can be sued under California law because they accepted the EULA" seems like a mechanical, strict, pedantic application of law though.

How does that seem pedantic? It's incredibly straightforward.

On the other hand, creating some kind of convoluted, contrived paper trail to claim that mysterious third parties were the ones to have physically pressed the "Accept" button on your 100 fake accounts and so you didn't even know there was a EULA seems kind of like it might actually be fraud.

In addition, it doesn't survive past the moment it is discussed in court documents, at which point NSO are screwed if they ever pull the same shit again.

A full paper trail would also necessarily disclose the entity that provided those devices, which they may well be loathe to do (since it either drags in a related company, who Apple can then also target, or embarrasses a third party who would rather remain nameless).

However, in practice, a technology engineering firm claiming to have no knowledge of the licensing that applies to the devices in which they also claim expertise, is such a far-fetched statement that it's almost trivially set aside, and earns a rebuke from the bench to boot.

I don’t see how this differs much from a common “clean room” reverse engineering strategy where one set of engineers accepts the eula and then writes down in excruciating detail exactly how the target item works, then a second set of engineers that have never seen the item in question (or accepted a eula) takes these detailed writings and uses them to reverse engineer the item in question. (A mere description of a device or software is not protected)

This is standard practice at large companies when reverse engineering chips, devices and software and seems very similar to the above eula argument.

In the clean room reverse engineering case:

1a. one team examines the device and products a detailed specification of it

1b. another team works solely off that newly produced specification; this team has zero contact with the actual device

In this hypothetical case:

2a. a third party affiliate accepts the Apple EULA, and gives the Apple IDs to NSO Group

2b. NSO Group uses the Apple IDs as credential to obtain Apple services

Notice that in case 2b, NSO Group has actual contact with Apple in two ways. They used Apple IDs, and that they obtain Apple services. This didn't happen in the reverse engineering case.

Good points - thank you!

Wouldn't there be an article in the EULA that states if you use an Apple device, regardless of clicking buttons, you automatically consent to the ToS? Or is that not how the law works ...?

EULA isn't ToS. If you accept EULA and EULA automatically joins you to ToS, then you also accept ToS, usually including all its future versions.

Yes, American companies love to stack the deck against their users when it comes to selecting venue, but at the same time balk when the EU requires that they have an EU anchor to allow legal enforcement.

Who balked? Apple anchored in Ireland and got an amazing deal. I doubt they balked at that.

That's how law works.

Taken out of its context to prove a point on a web forum and I would agree

Lots of people negotiated these things and agreed to make commerce happen.

Novel to you does not mean novel to humanity.

Speaking as someone who’s been on the unfortunate wrong end of it, the law is applied stupidly and mechanically. All the time. That’s the default. The judge will go to great pains to super pedantically apply the rule of the law, regardless of common sense and believe it or not in most cases also regardless of common sense.

As it should be. It doesn’t always work well for all circumstances, but we don’t have a better system

Irrespective of your personal experience, the law is nevertheless still not a programming language, thankfully.

However, "common sense" is also not how it works, so sure, when people rely on what they expect "common sense" to mean, then they too get screwed (the meaning of "common sense" after all varying dramatically from person to person).

Law has its own principles, philosophy, and practices, that's all. And judges, especially senior judges, do not like it one iota when folks try to circumvent the meaning, substance, and purpose of these elements.

This isn't the case everywhere. In some countries it is the intent of the law that matters, in others it is the letter of the law, in some a mix of both.

Your argument loses weight with the ad homonym attack.

Disagree. It was the cherry on top.

Nerds always want the law to be consistent. Lawyers are Machiavellian professionals trained in getting it to say "heads I win tails you lose" for their clients, and often succeed.

That doesn't mean the nerds are wrong to want what they want.

No, it is just that most nerds are too ignorant to understand how law works and its purpose and mechanisms. They expect it to be some sort of API spec that can be mechanically manipulated. Their own efforts at such intellectual mechanics are nothing but a trail of tears and failure, with bug after bug making a mockery of any claim they have about the benefits of such a system. Law has had millennia to work out the kinks in the system and develop practices that are robust in the face of adversarial attack by actual smart people; coders can't seem to keep basic services operating in ideal conditions and yet you expect anyone to look to this group when it comes to actual life and death decisions? Hard pass.

> No, it is just that most nerds are too ignorant to understand how law works and its purpose and mechanisms.

People have a pretty good idea of its mechanisms.

Powerful people break laws that are clear enough and then don't go to jail because of "prosecutorial discretion" or Johnnie Cochran or retroactive telecoms immunity for illegal mass surveillance.

Powerless people break laws that are ambiguous, or most people don't even know exist, or people know exist but they're only enforced against the nameless and poor, and the US has the largest prison population in the world.

This outcome is your great victory for "millennia to work out the kinks in the system and develop practices that are robust in the face of adversarial attack by actual smart people"?

> trail of tears


> coders can't seem to keep basic services operating in ideal conditions and yet you expect anyone to look to this group when it comes to actual life and death decisions?

We already have code running when it comes to actual life and death decisions. There is code running in aircraft and heart bypass machines, and it works, because then people care that it works. Nobody cares enough that some ad tracking code is perfectly reliable and efficient, so it isn't.

You're also asking for a double standard. The OpenBSD people do a nice job on OpenSSH. It's pretty good, not perfect. There have been vulnerabilities in even that. Then they get patched.

But you can't possibly be claiming that there are no "vulnerabilities" in the law. If that was the case then why do they have to keep passing new ones every year? The ask isn't that it never change, it's that it be changed by the legislature prospectively instead of being in a constant state of superposition until it's resolved by a court ex post facto.

The is also why the Crypto-bro dream of having "smart" contracts manage the entire global financial system is insane.

> Modelle zum »Drugchecking« geplant

I know this true of other languages too, but Germany really loves to do this: use "English" phrases which are either simply wrong or have another meaning than intended, or no clear meaning (here it's pill testing, basically).

I don't know why they do this! It's really irritating as an anglophone immigrant to Germany. German is a real language, they can just say Drogenprüfung, who knows why they don't.

Drogenprüfung would sound like something from before most people were born. It's basically "this is a term of this day and age, not an old one you just haven't heard before". And of course a fake appeal to internationality: everyone (except for those who made it up) suspects that someone more well-traveled might be familiar with the term, can't risk appearing inexperienced. And yes, it's stupid. There's been a pandemic for almost two years now and most people in Germany could still only decipher the term "work from home" by translating its elements one by one.

My experience with Germans in commerce related things is that they want to emulate the successes of the US market and buyin comes from making things sound like they are concepts already used in the US market.

As others said: foreign, exotic and important.

But hopefully I added an explanation of why.

Its entertaining to watch.

Makes it sound important and exotic.

What English speakers called "cinéma vérité," French speakers called "direct cinema."

freedom day ... argh $$#@&$

It's not really conceptually different from relying on third party libraries in any context.

I haven't touched JavaScript since the late 90s, so I dunno what the hell's going on there, but in my C++ projects I typically have 10-20 dependencies (counting modularized Boost as one). They're either built by a custom script which includes the SHA256 of the tarballs it expects, or by a particular pinned commit of vcpkg which likewise uses SHA512 to verify its downloads.

I generally only update these when I need a new feature or bug fix, which means I'm unlikely to get bitten by any temporary security compromise.

If the "particular checkout of vcpkg" type of approach is impossible with other package managers, that's unfortunate.

> I haven't touched JavaScript since the late 90s, so I dunno what the hell's going on there,

Well you're in for a surprise: the entire web is built on JavaScript for one thing. And that is build on frameworks which are built on ... other frameworks, which are built on a ginormous repository typically accessed by npm/yarn.

npm modules aren't the same as boost. Boost is written and scrutinized by some of the best C++ minds on the planet.

npm modules are written by anyone. they are all open source, but so many are in use that i doubt they get the scrutiny they deserve. at one point there was a package just to left-align things and a bug in it broke thousands of services.

but that's the landscape the modern web is built on, for better or for worse.

I believe you're referring to "left-pad," but I think the author actually deleted the package and that's why the dependency chain broke.

Yes, that's it! Thank you for clarifying.

Fortunately this is the default in JavaScript world with both Yarn and NPM supporting lockfiles which have hashes and pinned versions. The problem is the sheer volume of dependencies and transient dependencies which makes it hard to reliably audit those, as updating one thing can cause a lot of work.

> I haven't touched JavaScript since the late 90s

Can I come live with you? It's sad that I'm only half joking.

Even building boring old nuclear fission plants is far too slow! We need big changes now, not in 5-10 years, and definitely not in (really optimistically for fusion) 25+ years.

Disagree with the premise that there's less room for major exciting changes. We're still using the same dumb grid-of-apps home screen on iOS, which has been nearly unchanged since its 2007 inception.

I refuse to believe that swiping through pages of icons or typing their names into a search box is the best we can do. Some day we'll get a radically new iOS.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact