A good companion piece to this is Patrick H Willems' youtube essay "Everything Is Content Now". That section of the blog post brings up points in such a similar manner to the video that I'm surprised it doesn't cite it.
"We want your code to look like Java, not learn a new query language" combined with "we will support any persistence layer under the sun" is going to be a recipe for disaster.
You folks just fixed my iPhone 12! It was my first iPhone, and the lightning port "broke" after two months. In the years since then, I just charged wirelessly and made sure I always have a Qi pad available (battery life on the 12 series is not great). I just took a plastic twist tie, the kind you use for PC cables, and aggressively scraped the port's insides, especially the back/bottom since there's no contacts there. Lo and behold, I fished out a lapdog's worth of lint and the phone immediately started charging again.
If iTunes = Apple Music, then I wish more people talked about this. The UX is so-so on iPhones, and terrible on Mac, and probably irredeemable on Windows. Insane that such a cornerstone of Apple's services offerring is so bad.
Same. Also, even without the ChromeTM ExclusiveTM Enchancements, I could swear my camera looks better in Chrome than Safari, when if anything it should be other way around.
I don't think slowing down the (Google-propelled) web standards commitees is the worst thing in the world. The endless rolling release stifles browser competition. I wish we could treat the web as a protocol and say "here, this is all it does and all it will do for the next N years, make the most of it".
In general this would be a good thing, but not the way Safari does it. Why? Well, because eventually, almost everything Safari doesn't implement does get implemented in Safari, and because some of their longer running omissions smell suspiciously like conflicts of interest that hurt the ecosystem. A lot of people are incorrectly under the impression that Safari finally supports WebM and Opus, but it only does so on macOS (and every time I point this out, someone under that impression claims it has changed recently, and it never has; it's like Apple wants you to think it's supported.) Not to mention their "great" influence on the WebGPU standard and any other number of weird omissions and quirks in Safari.
It's annoying that I need Apple hardware to make sure my web applications work in Safari when I basically never need to specifically test Chrome or Firefox.
Why does a bottle of water at a ballgame cost $5, at a food truck $1, and at a supermarket $0.15?
Personally, I find the ballgame price exploitive, but the food truck has added a bunch of convenience (and a few pennies of refrigeration cost) and that's worth paying $0.85 extra to a lot of people.
Difficult to calculate that given lock-in. If you've outsourced everything infrastructure related, you aren't in the same market without substantial upfront investments being made.
Amazon/Google/Microsoft/IBM et al. all know this, it's why there are significant incentives if they know you can walk.
The situation is basically that railroad workers asked the Biden administration to weigh in to improve the terms of the latest contract that the railroad company management was offering them, and the Biden administration told them tough luck. Which is indeed a bleak situation. But misdescribing it as "railroad company management wants to pay zero money and take all the profits" does not help; it makes it worse because it makes the workers sound unreasonable since the claim is obviously false. (Btw, I'm not saying the actual railroad workers are making that claim. Only the post I originally responded to was.)
The fact that railroad service in the US sucks is also bleak, and is a product of the same government regulation that has put the railroad company workers in the bleak position they are in. If you don't like the obvious implication of my previous post, which is that the government should open up railroads to free market competition and force the railroad company management to either show actual business acumen or give up their profits to someone who can, there is another possible response: since the government has created a railroad monopoly, the government should grant ownership of the railroad companies to all railroad workers, not just the company management. That way all workers would naturally share in the profits, because they all have a share in ownership. That would actually be more in line with what "socialism" claims to be about: everyone gets a share in the ownership of the capital they use to produce value. But the article that was cited doesn't make that argument either (once more, for ideological reasons that are obvious to anyone who is familiar with the history of socialism).
