zlacker

[parent] [thread] 9 comments
1. btown+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-07-26 13:13:13
From the spec author, in 2022 [0]:

> I decided to make this an app in the end. This is where my costs started wracking up. I had to pay for a second hand macbook pro to build an iOS app. Apple’s strategy with this is obvious, and it clearly works, but it still greatly upsets me that I couldn’t just build an app with my linux laptop. If I want the app to persist for longer than a month, and to make it easy for friends to install, I had to pay $99 for a developer account. Come on Apple, I know you want people to use the app story but this is just a little cruel. I basically have to pay $99 a year now just to keep using my little app.

The double-think is absolutely astounding.

[0] https://benwiser.com/blog/I-just-spent-%C2%A3700-to-have-my-...

replies(4): >>Waterl+s5 >>freeAg+i9 >>kalleb+Je >>toyg+Mk1
2. Waterl+s5[view] [source] 2023-07-26 13:35:21
>>btown+(OP)
My understanding is that Ben gets his paycheque from Google.
replies(1): >>toyg+Yk1
3. freeAg+i9[view] [source] 2023-07-26 13:50:02
>>btown+(OP)
This is especially surprising coming from a Linux user who presumably understands the desire to have a device that runs code one can read, write, compile, execute, and share freely and without needing to receive approval from a Big Tech gatekeeper.
replies(1): >>caskst+bG
4. kalleb+Je[view] [source] 2023-07-26 14:11:00
>>btown+(OP)
I don't think it's double-think, it's just a lack of consequential thinking. I believe the writers of the spec when they say that they just want to be able to see which ad views are real or not. They even lay out some (far too weak) ideas to keep the system from being mandatory and abusable. But they don't realize just how quickly things will go out of hand once the rest of the organization realizes what they have created.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

replies(2): >>doglea+rp >>dmvdou+561
◧◩
5. doglea+rp[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 14:52:16
>>kalleb+Je
> it's just a lack of consequential thinking

Googlers tend to trust google, even when its readily apparent tool/system design obviously puts them in a control position above anyone else in matters that extend beyond their own walls. I've only met a few that will coyly admit they don't trust google, but maintain they have to keep up appearances.

I think it also explains their outspokenness on societal issues outside google's control. It's a distraction from thinking too hard about what societal bad google does have control over.

replies(1): >>kalleb+Rq
◧◩◪
6. kalleb+Rq[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 14:57:55
>>doglea+rp
Exactly. This is common also with other tech companies. I knew an ex-Facebook employee who was defending them at the height of their "Facebook Research proxy monitoring underage kids traffic" scandal. I'm sure his team was trying to be moral in their work, but people don't realize this doesn't generalize to massive corporations or even that in their bubble their morals may be perverted.
◧◩
7. caskst+bG[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 15:48:11
>>freeAg+i9
Maybe desire for great performance review is much greater in the author than being able to access the Web from his Linux laptop?
◧◩
8. dmvdou+561[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 17:21:14
>>kalleb+Je
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Fine. Then, when we arrive in hell because this person took us there, it should follow him all the rest of his days that he was too Pollyannish about the consequences of his own designs.

9. toyg+Mk1[view] [source] 2023-07-26 18:09:30
>>btown+(OP)
The guy seems to have deleted most of his social accounts. Clearly he values privacy for himself, just not for everyone else.
◧◩
10. toyg+Yk1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 18:10:20
>>Waterl+s5
It's hard to get someone to understand if his salary depends on not understanding.
[go to top]