Mastodon Feed: Posts

cstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen") wrote:

Chewing on this blog post this evening. Especially thinking about how even a non-commercial social media may exhibit or encourage undesirable behaviors. 🤔 "A Society That Lost Focus":

https://ploum.net/2024-03-18-lost-focus.html

Reblogged by slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell"):

jenn@pixel.kitchen ("jenn schiffer") wrote:

tomorrow i’m having @zachleat on the @glitchdotcom livestream to talk about fast blogs. you can get the details and share what questions you’d like me to ask him here: https://support.glitch.com/t/tell-us-your-questions-for-eleventy-creator-maintainer-zach-leatherman-and-join-us-live-this-friday

Reblogged by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen"):

PeterSmith@mathstodon.xyz ("Peter Smith") wrote:

There's a new -- free to download -- version of *Category Theory I: A gentle prologue*.

OK: I must stop tinkering with it! Though any (constructive!) last minute comments/corrections before I paperback it are still very welcome.

https://www.logicmatters.net/categories/

Attachments:

• Cover for paperback (remote)

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

And we can't forget Gruber, who dutifully trotted out non-defenses (charitably) even before he'd read it. Top work 🫠

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

The third dumbest set of takes claim that DOJ v. MSFT didn't have any impact. Try telling that to literally any of my colleagues. They'll laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

The second dumbest set of comments are the "but they didn't get everything exactly as I would have written it regarding the history of the iPod"

Insistently stupid. None of these people drag Apple for its constant, epic rewrites of history. 🤦‍♂️

Reblogged by kornel ("Kornel"):

lmorchard@hackers.town ("Les Orchard") wrote:

I beg of you, web site designers, just let me scroll through a page and stop trying to make my scroll-wheel the hand-crank of your obnoxious hurdy-gurdy of a marketing presentation

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

Just reading the tech commentariat on the DOJ v. Apple thing, and an unbelievable amount of this is just aggressively stupid:

https://www.techmeme.com/240321/p25#a240321p25

The dumbest comments are of the "but Apple only has 20-25% share worldwide!" variety.

🤦‍♂️

This is a *US* suit about the *US* market.

Reblogged by fromjason ("fromjason.xyz 🖤"):

themarkup@mastodon.themarkup.org ("The Markup") wrote:

Would you want Facebook to know if you visited a suicide hotline?

Our investigation from June 2023 found that over 30 suicide hotline websites sent visitor data to Facebook. That story has now become a finalist for a NIHCM award!

Revisit the story: https://themarkup.org/pixel-hunt/2023/06/13/suicide-hotlines-promise-anonymity-dozens-of-their-websites-send-sensitive-data-to-facebook

Reblogged by slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell"):

web3isgreat@indieweb.social ("web3 is going just great") wrote:

SEC launches investigation into Ethereum Foundation

March 20, 2024
https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=sec-ethereum-foundation-investigation

Attachments:

• SEC launches investigation into Ethereum Foundation Fortune reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has targeted the Swiss-based Ethereum Foundation for investigation, apparently in an effort to classify its ETH token a security. The report came out shortly after CoinDesk reported that a warrant canary had been removed from the Ethereum Foundation's website. Although the SEC has agreed that bitcoin is a commodity and not a security, it has been hesitant to make similar explicit statements about ETH. Designation as a security could be devastating to the Ethereum project and to ETH, which is the second most popular cryptocurrency to bitcoin. (remote)

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

@owa In summary, I wish this had taken browser and web app contestability vs. native more seriously, and the bones are there for it to come to the fore. But even without that...dang, yo! This is a banger. The first ~11 pages (the summary) are worth a read on their own.

Reblogged by fromjason ("fromjason.xyz 🖤"):

bw@social.lol ("Blake Watson :prami:") wrote:

I've been messing around with some CSS for styling blog posts for like three days now and keep changing my mind. Is there a word for this? It's like CSS decision paralysis.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

@owa They *could* have gone narrow, but they are going deep and wide. The evidence of Apple's bad behaviour is gobsmacking.

This is gonna come down to market definition (like most antitrust cases) and specific fact patterns. Helpfully to the DOJ's case, Apple have been *such* shitheads to *so many* regulators and competitors that they've basically dared DOJ to act. And that dare has been accepted.

DOJ repeatedly points out Apple's pattern of malicious compliance:

Attachments:

• DOJ vs. Apple, page 48, 'graf 123: "123. In addition, when one road is closed to Apple, Apple has demonstrated its ability to find new roads to the same or worse ends. For example, Apple was recently ordered to stop blocking link-outs by third parties to their websites where users could buy the third party’s product cheaper. In response, Apple reportedly allowed link-outs to websites but now charges for purchases made on the web even if they are not an immediate result of a click from a link in a native iPhone app. " (remote)

fromjason ("fromjason.xyz 🖤") wrote:

I find myself writing for the Listen to Page feature on Safari. Have you used it? Siri will read aloud any article. It's my favorite iOS feature in half a decade.

I publish to my drafts directory, and listen to the prose. I make edits based on what sounds clunky or confusing. It's actually so helpful. I think it has made me a better editor.

So if you read one of my posts on https://fromjason.xyz, try out the Listen To Page feature. I wrote it around how that sounds.

#writing #blogging #blog

jsonstein@masto.deoan.org ("Jeff Sonstein") wrote:

cool… NY State has charged my card for reserving my shiny new biz name, so I should get some happiness paperwork back in a few days

“And now, watch us pull a rabbit out of our hat”

https://arghstudios.com

Attachments:

• 5bbfcbe49414e44f.jpeg (remote)

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

@owa The breadth of this is just incredible. They're going after everything: hardware tying (e.g. watches), app store policies, Apple Pay fees, game streaming, super apps, default search engine choice...the whole kit and caboodle. And they're accusing Apple of *generalized* shittyness. They want a deep clean of the rotten thing from top to bottom, and nothing is off limits.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

@owa They point out many ways that Apple's nonsense API self-preferencing has harmed competitors and consumers. Everything from lack of SMS APIs (so people *must* use iMessage at least some of the time) to Bluetooth and NFC hijinks.

And they go for the jugular on the security and privacy excuses. Incredible to read.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

@owa This is perhaps risky as a litigation strategy, but DOJ sets up two nested arguments:

1.) that Apple's anti-competitive behaviour in the "performance smartphones" market is illegal
2.) even if you look at just the larger smartphone market, it's still illegal.

And boy howdy do they bring the goods on what the shady behaviour is.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

@owa The market definition sections are also very interesting. DOJ is defining the most affected market as "performance smartphones" (or what I'd call the "premium" and "super-premium" segments). DOJ also uses a novel "share by revenue" (not shipments) argument that I find incredibly hopeful. It acknowledges that wealth has a huge effect on the technology market.

Attachments:

• DOJ vs. Apple, page 66, 'graf 181: "181. In the U.S. market for performance smartphones, where Apple views itself as competing, Apple estimates its market share exceeds 70 percent. These estimates likely understate Apple’s market share today. For example, Apple’s share among key demographics, including younger audiences and higher-income households, is even larger. Even in the broadest market consisting of all smartphones—including many smartphones that Apple and industry participants do not view as competing with Apple’s iPhones and other higher-end phones — Apple’s share is more than 65 percent by revenue." (remote)

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

Browsers get mentioned early on; see @owa's post on that:

https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/us-doj-files-apple-antitrust-case/

Frustratingly, it seems like some of the folks drafting this didn't really understand the role that web apps can play if browser competition is enabled on iOS. It's in there in parts, but doesn't come through as clearly as, e.g., smartwatch pairing shenanigans and NFC access do.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

Ok, I've now read all 88 pages of the DOJ's complaint against Apple.

https://www.404media.co/us-government-antitrust-case-against-apple-documents/

IANAL, obvs, but I do know something about smartphones and browsers. A quick thread to run down the big takeaways from that perspective.

First, this is incredibly sweeping. It is not a narrow complaint, and it is not asking for narrow remedies:

Attachments:

• DOJ vs. Apple, p77, asking for relief to: "4. Enjoin Apple from continuing to engage in the anticompetitive practices described herein and from engaging in any other practices with same purpose or effect as the challenged practices, including but not limited to: a. preventing Apple from using its control of app distribution to undermine cross-platform technologies such as super apps and cloud streaming apps, among others; b. preventing Apple from using private APIs to undermine cross￾platform technologies like messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets, among others; and c. preventing Apple from using the terms and conditions of its contracts with developers, accessory makers, consumers, or others to obtain, maintain, extend, or entrench a monopoly. 5. Enter any other preliminary or permanent relief necessary and appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by Apple’s unlawful conduct; " (remote)

Reblogged by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen"):

mhoye wrote:

I've never heard of a "Trautonium" before, a kind of elaborate electronic organ?

@mcc this seems like it would be up your alley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbnAmIKlWmM

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

Hey Apple, you know what's a "heavy hand in designing people's technology"? Your rules against browser engine choice.

https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/21/apple-sued-by-us-department-of-justice/

Reblogged by fromjason ("fromjason.xyz 🖤"):

jdp23@blahaj.zone ("Jon") wrote:

"The great thing about #Mastodon is that the discourse is consistently high-quality, you don't get the same nonsense as on (nudge-nudge) _other_social networks." Yeah right.

RE: https://c.im/users/EcoLogicExplorer/statuses/112136096318503700

Reblogged by kornel ("Kornel"):

chronomyst@jorts.horse ("Crushed Möbius Strip") wrote:

@falcennial @plutonian

Attachments:

• loony toons style mandalorian saying this is the way a la porky pig (remote)

Reblogged by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen"):

anaisfae@mastodon.art ("Anaïs Faë") wrote:

Lucid dream

Attachments:

• watercolor painting, a raven in the middle of lupins. Its feathers have a purple sheen, like the color of the flowers. (remote)

Reblogged by kornel ("Kornel"):

Dee@fedi.underscore.world ("Dee Underscore (orb mode) :heart_nb:") wrote:

you, too, can edit OpenStreetMap if you steal a bulldozer

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

There's gonna be a LOT of bad takes about the DOJ suit against Apple, but they capture the essential problem at the bottom of Cupertino's behaviour:

"Apple has also used its control over app distribution and app creation to selectively undermine cross-platform technologies, not because this helps protect users but because it helps protect Apple."

This could not be more true than re: browsers.

Attachments:

• "Apple has also used its control over app distribution and app creation to selectively undermine cross-platform technologies, not because this helps protect users but because it helps protect Apple." -- DOJ complaint against Apple, page 53, 'graf 133. (remote)

jsonstein@masto.deoan.org ("Jeff Sonstein") wrote:

first 2 pages (‘Executive Overview’ plus ‘Goals & Objectives’) of biz plan draft completed & out for review

mbrubeck@mefi.social wrote:

Attachments:

• Image of a yard sign reading: In this house, we’ve seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire of the shoulder of Orion. C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All these moments will be lost in time Like tears in rain. (remote)