Which era of science was apolitical, exactly? The one where Galileo was prosecuted by the church? Or one where the US military invested billions of dollars into early computer science? Or one where nearly every physicist was staunchly anti-proliferationist ?
Science has not, and will never be, apolitical. It is just that you are noticing that the politics of some scientists does not align with yours or with some politicians, and so you’re noticing the difference.
I suspect in the 60s and 70s science was (in the public imagination) wrapped up in a positive story of the future, full of space travel and prosperity for all. And now science is wrapped in a story (at least for some) of doom and gloom. Climate wars, or creeping authoritarian governments telling people what to think.
I suspect the experience of actual scientists, in labs trying things out, hasn’t changed anywhere near as much as the public’s stories of science have changed.
How is science political? I am happy to work from that premise, but it needs more than an assertion to be taken seriously.
My experience is that people complaining about science being partisan (which they tend to mean by “political”) do not understand much about science or how it works. I am willing to believe that you are not one of those people, but what you write is a bit close. So, could you give some particular examples or facts rather than empty phrases?
Yeah definitely dude. Climate disbelievers are actually doing good faith deep dives into the studies and identifying specific, real problems, and pushing for better science to be done.
Fundamentally, the problem is today science is framed as nothing else but a competition, an olymic event, that produces winners that we celebrate and losers, rather than cooperation.
If you got the grant, you won; if you did not, you lost. Losing means you cannot hire graduate students you cannot perform your job at all!
Now consider that around 15% of grants get funded, and it takes about six months to determine whether you got that grant or not.
The desperate competition for money overshadows everything in science.
Science is often thought of and presented as huge leaps, when in reality, it is an iterative process that builds on small advances.
I find it depressing that every time Stephen Wolfram wants to explain something, he slowly gravitates towards these simplistic cellular automata and tries to explain everything through them.
It feels like a religious talk.
The presentation consists of chunks of hard-to-digest, profound-sounding text followed by a supposedly informative picture with lots of blobs, then the whole pattern is repeated over and over.
But it never gets to the point. There is never an outcome, never a summary. It is always some sort of patterns and blobs that are supposedly explaining everything ... except nothing useful is ever communicated. You are supposed to "see" how the blobs are "everything..." a new kind of Science.
He cannot predict anything; he can not forecast anything; all he does is use Mathematica to generate multiplots of symmetric little blobs and then suggests that those blobs somehow explain something that currently exists
I find these Wolfram blogs a massive waste of time.
I think that unless Wolfram is directly contradicting the Church-Turing thesis it is ok to skip over the finite automata sections.
It is a given from Church-Turing that some automata will be equivalent to some turing machines, and while it is a profound result the specific details of the equivalence isn't super important unless, perhaps, it becomes super fast and efficient to run the automata instead of Von Neumann architecture.
I don't want to dig out the reference, but it seemed pretty credible when I read it.
It states that while it is true that people exposed to the sun get skin cancers more often, their outcomes are also usually far better.
So are their outcomes to all other forms of cancer. Thus, overall, the benefits are substantial.
This is not to say you should go out and lay in the sun for hours and get your skin dark brown - instead, it is about not being afraid of normal and regular sun exposure. It is good for you.
Things that mildly damage cells are not necessarily bad for you. They trigger apoptosis, a renewal of these cells. This is why fasting is beneficial, why exercise is beneficial, and why challenging your cells is beneficial. Many of the famous mud and water treatments that help arthritis have waters that are ever so slightly radioactive (well within safe limits but far higher than normal background radiation) for example.
lets use common sense a bit, humans have evolved while being in the sun, constantly, their skin darkened to protect them
as humans moved northward, the exposure to sun was so important that even their skin lost it protective pigmentation to allow more sun to reach the body
we are not even remotely close to understanding all the beneficial processes that take place when the sun hits skin
thinking that exposure to sun is like exposure to acid shows a complete disconnect from reality,
I would urge you to read up on this a lot more - you will find that people who spend time outdoors in the sun are healthier, happier, and live longer. Their outcomes when facing all kinds of cancers are far, far better.
leaking all SSNs makes relying on SSNs as authentication unfeasible,
the only way to stop SSNs being authentication token is to give everyone access to them, but yes that can cause short term troubles
The concept of having SSN is de facto wrong, there are situations where one needs to identify oneself unambiguously
I went to another country, and what I found is that to get a monthly bus pass I had to fill out a form that asked for:
Full Name + Gender + Date of birth + Place of birth + Mother's Maiden name + Mother's DOB + Mother's place of birth
(and so on) I forgot the exact details, but it was ludicrously intrusive. Mother's maiden name? Really??? I did not even know some of that info and filled it out with educated guesses. It is not like they were able to check ...
And for contrast, here is another book from the early 2000s that, seems to have stood the test of time:
The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and What to Do About It
1: the entrepreneurial myth: the myth that most people who start small businesses are entrepreneurs
2: the fatal assumption that an individual who understands the technical work of a business can successfully run a business that does that technical work
> Gerber draws the vital, often overlooked distinction between working on your business and working in your business.
That was the #1 thing that set me off against it decades before I found Reed's evisceration. The only people talking about it and promoting it were multi-level marketing scammers and adherents. Very cult. Much hype. Wow.
I used to be a Google Fi fan (early adopter at that) for European trips ... but nowadays, with multi-ESims, it is trivial to get a local SIM card and use that.
The local data plans are typically more broadly useable and cheaper than the $10/GB that Fi offers.
When it comes to Europe (and this might apply to other destinations as well) Fi is a bad deal.
Definitely applies to many Asian countries as well.
Often, eSims get significantly better latency too, since you get an IP from close to where you are instead of your data having to cross one or more oceans. A VoIP call between two US SIMs/phones roaming in Asia is not a great experience.
Note that's not always the case: eSIMs I got from Nomad and Airalo in Europe/UK last year were routing things via Hong Kong, so things like DDG and google search using the SIM geolocated me to Hong Kong all the time, and the latency was noticeably bad.
If you read the reviews of some of the eSIMs there are quite a few mentions of this happening.
Definitely – you need to be aware of that when picking one. Some vendors are pretty transparent about their "IP location" these days, fortunately.
Some, like Truphone, even have multiple gateways that are dynamically selected for lower latency, which is very neat (but they're generally more expensive).
> does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does?
There is a video link on the page from the original post where the Patreon CEO explains and reiterates the issues.
Notably, at one point, he says that Apple Platform brings in the most money to Patreon.
So there, looks like Apple brings in the money for Patreon. Apple seems to want a cut of that.
> So there, looks like Apple brings in the money for Patreon.
Apple users bring in the money for Patreon.
I own an iPhone. I am not Apple, and Apple does not own me. Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for.
>I own an iPhone. I am not Apple, and Apple does not own me. Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for.
> Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for.
I had the same feeling but I couldn't put it to words that well. But you hit the nail on the head. Thanks for this!
I dont think, the customer, or in your example "you" does not even come into the equation.
It is straightly Apple and Patreon. And in terns of Apple, they do think Patreon is accessing their customer base ( You ) and hence they want a cut of it.
So I'll start by saying that companies like Apple need to be regulated, as they're misusing their market power to the detriment of everyone but them.
However, your argument isn't what you think it is. It's extremely common for companies to sell/gatekeep (Or "pimp" as you put it) access to "their" user base. Think credit cards (Amex can charge merchants more as because their users tend to spend more) or even club memberships like Costco (They're certainly not letting telcos sign up users for free.)
I didn't buy my credit card. I don't own it. The credit card is just a little piece of plastic, totally useless without the line of credit, i.e, the service provided by the credit card company, in stark contrast with my computers, which can be used quite extensively without the App Store.
The credit card company is not gatekeeping "access" to me. I can pay for things with cash, a debit card, a check, etc. If I choose to pay with a credit card, it's because I wish to take advantage of the specific features of the credit card, the primary one of which is the ability to pay for the product later rather than at the moment of purchase.
> You can be both an Amex and a Visa card Customer.
Yes, which supports my point.
> You can also be an iPhone and Android Customer at the same time as well.
Who does this? Barely anyone. Most people can't afford to buy two smartphones, and even if you could afford two, why in the world would you use two of them simultaneously? That sounds extremely inconvenient, for no apparent benefit. Practically speaking, a smartphone is an exclusive relationship; you pick one at a time.
Yours is such a bizarre hypothetical.
In any case, the crucial difference is that a smartphone is a product of independent value that you can buy, whereas a credit card is not. The piece of plastic is just a container for your credit card number, a means of accessing the service, a line of credit.
>In any case, the crucial difference is that a smartphone is a product of independent value that you can buy, whereas a credit card is not.
This is missing the broader point, which is that companies absolutely do gatekeep access to "their" customers all the time in several industries in and outside of tech. Customer acquisition costs a lot of money, and one of the ways businesses recoup their costs or boost profits is by monetizing them by selling access.
The problem with Apple doing it is that they're abusing their market power.
>The problem with Apple doing it is that they're abusing their market power.
I think it's even more base than that. Valve does it and users are happy (I have hot takes on this, but that's a later, inevitable discussion for another post). Because they continually re-invest in Steam to add more features, niceties, and convenience. Customers feel respected. Costco does it because ultimately customers who buy in bulk get deals that pays the membership back, as well as a very cheap food court.
What's the last "rewarding feature" Apple's really done to the app store that made customers feel respected? Not something like the Play Pass where "you spend 500 dollars and we'll give you a 5 dollar coupon!".
I'm genuinely asking as an android user and I can't even think of an answer on the Play Store. I had to look it up and family sharing seems to be the most recent option from 2021/2022-ish.
>The problem with Apple doing it is that they're abusing their market power.
Agree on every point. But I think I will stop here. As this isn't the first time OP has been at this. It is also clear he doesn't understand difference between market access, market power and exclusivity. He is also rude and not the first time either.
> This is missing the broader point, which is that companies absolutely do gatekeep access to "their" customers all the time in several industries in and outside of tech.
You're still in need of examples, because I've already explained how credit card companies don't gatekeep access to me.
> Customer acquisition costs a lot of money, and one of the ways businesses recoup their costs or boost profits is by monetizing them by selling access.
iPhones also cost a lot of money. Apple sold almost $40 billion worth of iPhones just last quarter. I'm quite certain that Apple is recouping its costs via hardware sales.
There are plenty of examples out there, but keeping it to the ones I've already pointed out:
Costco makes the vast majority of its profit from membership sales, and not from the items they're selling. They absolutely gatekeep access to "their" customers, and regularly play hardball with their suppliers to keep prices low, even major ones like CocaCola. Suppliers that don't meet their terms don't make it to their warehouses. Same as Apple.
You don't seem to understand what gatekeeping means.
In the context of iPhone, it means that the owner of an iPhone is not able to install software on their own iPhone without Apple's permission. It's a restriction on the owner's freedom.
Neither credit cards nor Costco memberships are analogous, because in the first place, there's no ownership involved, as I already explained. With a Costco membership, you certainly don't own part of Costco. You're simply buying temporary access to the store. In the second place, there's no restriction of customer freedom. A Costco member is free to walk across the street and buy Coca-Cola at any other store. Coke is Coke: it's the exact same formula in every can or bottle. It may be more expensive elsewhere, of course, and that's the point of the Costco membership. But there is absolutely nothing in the world restricting Coke and customers of Coke from coming together.
I have no objection to Apple having an App Store and setting terms for its App Store. It does this on the Mac too. My objection is that unlike on the Mac, the iOS App Store is the sole source of software, and iPhone owners are not free to shop elsewhere, again unlike Mac owners. The iPhone gatekeeps its owners in a way that the Mac does not.
It's not really about market power, because iPhone owners have never been free to install software from outside the App Store, not even way back in 2008 when iPhone sales were vastly smaller. And that's always been wrong.
If you want another example of customer gatekeeping, I'll give you one: John Deere tractors using DRM to prevent tractor owners or third-parties from repairing the tractor. That's wrong too.
>You don't seem to understand what gatekeeping means.
You don't seem to understand that gatekeeping doesn't mean your myopic understanding of it.
In the examples given the businesses restrict access to (i.e. "Gatekeep") "their" customers to those that want access to them. In the Costco example, if Coke wants to sell to their customers, they'll have to come to terms with Costco before doing so. No agreement with Costco means no access to Costco customers, which is a lot of customers. That's all it takes to meet the definition gatekeeping, because that's what it is.
If you want a 1:1 example, then just look at gaming consoles, their whole business model depends on the same one giving Apple antitrust issues. Same gatekeeper restrictions.
Which then leads to market power. It's not that the business model is, or even should be, illegal per se, but abusing their market position to amass undue control over the market they operate in. That's when antitrust laws come into effect, and why we're seeing Apple in the crosshairs of the DOJ and not Nintendo.
> No agreement with Costco means no access to Costco customers, which is a lot of customers.
Specifically, it means no access to Costco customers inside Costco. But again, Costco customers are not forced to shop in Costco. They can shop anywhere they please, including but not limited to Costco.
That's the essential difference. iPhone customers are forced to shop for apps inside the App Store. They have no access to alternative stores, unlike Costco customers. Costco cannot prevent their customers from shopping for the same goods in other stores.
> If you want a 1:1 example, then just look at gaming consoles, their whole business model depends on the same one giving Apple antitrust issues. Same gatekeeper restrictions.
Agreed.
> It's not that the business model is, or even should be, illegal per se
I think it should be. In my opinion, it's one and the same with the right to repair. Once I pay for my computer and walk out the door, it ought to be mine to do with as I please.
I don't want to get into a debate about what "is" legal or illegal in the United States. As I see it, the law is whatever a majority of the Supreme Court decides it is on any given day, precedents and principles be damned. And antitrust enforcement has been practically nonexistent since Microsoft got a slap on the wrist a couple decades ago. I don't expect Apple to have much trouble here in the near future. Of course Europe is another matter.
"a cut of that" is doing a heck of a lot of work here to handwave the amount they're asking for.
A "cut" in this case means such a high percentage of the transaction that if Patreon didn't pass the extra cost on to consumers/creators, they would make negative dollars on each iOS subscription. That really genuinely does not strike you as odd at all?
It doesn't strike you as weird or maybe like a possibly negative market effect that Patreon as a platform should be more profitable for Apple than it is for Patreon? I think most people would say that's a signal that something might be going wrong.
> Importantly at one point he says that Apple lpatform brings in the most money to Patreon.
I'm not surprised.
The dirty little secret people won't talk about is that monetizing anything is so much easier on iOS because Apple users have, in some combination, more disposable income to offer, and are more willing to spend money.
This has been the elephant in the room for my entire career, almost 11 years working in apps. Monetizing on Apple is easier. Getting Apple users to put down money for good software is easier, and Apple users will pay more for the software they want.
There's a lot of reasons for this, many of them socioeconomic in nature that mark out the differences between your average iPhone user and your average Android user, and I don't want to get into that quagmire and be called elitist: all I'm saying is, when Patreon says the vast majority of patrons are buying from iOS powered devices, between iOS being easier to monetize and the general populace being on their phones far more than their computers; yeah that makes complete fucking sense to me. I believe him.
>The dirty little secret people won't talk about is that monetizing anything is so much easier on iOS because Apple users have, in some combination, more disposable income to offer, and are more willing to spend money.
That fact is neither dirty nor secret. I know you were using a figure of speech, but still. Everyone knows it.
>This has been the elephant in the room for my entire career, almost 11 years working in apps. Monetizing on Apple is easier. Getting Apple users to put down money for good software is easier, and Apple users will pay more for the software they want.
That's also pretty obvious, and likely because Apple users, whether mobile or computer, tend to spend more per capita on hardware than Windows or Linux users, simply because Apple hardware is more expensive.
It was already true on desktop, before laptop, and before mobile, on Apple devices.
I don't think it's up for debate either, but it doesn't change that a lot of people I've interacted with, online, at work and even at conferences don't like talking about the... differences in monetizing on the two major phone platforms.
I think another big reason why Apple users are more willing to spend money is because they haven't normalized providing 'free' services the way Google has. But, I think Apple's gradually starting to encroach into pushing it too far though.
American-manufactured automobiles bring in the majority of money to drive-thru restaurants too. Should they get a cut of drive-thru restaurants' revenue?
if American manufactured automobiles were bringing in substantially more money to drive-throughs than Japanese ones - and if American made automobiles had a way to influence where you drive ... I think they would also get a cut from the drive throughs
If you can afford an iphone, you can afford sending money to a number of random strangers without seeing a blip in your monthly budget. That is pretty much the reality.
