And even if you read the banner on the site, the email they sent, and the announcement itself, you would not see instructions that mention the specific thing(s) you must change in order to opt out.
Sure, you can poke around in the settings and find one that you believe opts you out, but in lieu of clear and explicit instructions from GitHub, you'll have no way to find out. Only the possibility of finding out later that you guessed wrong.
And I'd imagine that this decline accelerates as _developers_ begin migrating to other platforms, since the applications they created are what made that platform appealing to non-developers. That's why Steve Ballmer was jumping up and down, shouting, in a sweaty fervor. Say what you want about pre-Nadella Microsoft, but they definitely recognized the importance of having lots of developers writing software for Windows. And they treated developers like VIPs.
> decline accelerates as _developers_ begin migrating to other platforms
developers don't control what platforms an enterprise would use. Vendors don't dictate the platform either - vendors sell to a customer, and so it makes sense that the customer dictates the platform.
when migration to different platform happens, it's because there's something disruptive that enterprises need to move to, or a new class of enterprise without existing/legacy baggage sees competitive advantage in moving. This happened to IBM when their mainframes no longer offered competitive advantage over the newly minted PC platforms.
If/when windows become lackluster in terms of a required feature, or did not keep up with a needed feature that an alternative platform provides, then the switch will happen fast. What that feature might be i dont know - if i knew, i'd be making it.
> developers don't control what platforms an enterprise would use
They might not control it directly, but they absolutely influence it. Linux was on the losing end of this for many years, as common end-user enterprise software was native and only available for Windows (or in the case of Microsoft Office, nominally available for Mac OS but with fewer features and lots more bugs). That was Microsoft's moat and it started leaking when web applications became ubiquitous. That leak later accelerated when those web applications had to work on mobile operating systems (namely iOS and Android) that Microsoft did not own and could not control.
> Vendors don't dictate the platform either - vendors sell to a customer,
> and so it makes sense that the customer dictates the platform.
There are plenty of counterexamples here. I used to have two legacy SGI machines in my cubicle at work precisely because a vendor dictated the platform to that Very Big Enterprise company many years earlier.
Similarly, many people buy Macs solely to run Logic Pro or Final Cut Pro, because the vendor (Apple) dictated the platform by discontinuing the Windows versions. Apple doesn't have the market share Microsoft has, but unlike Microsoft, they can maintain strong control because of their breadth (OS and hardware for desktop, tablet, and phone, plus high-end creative software) and because a lot of their customers are all-in on Apple's ecosystem.
I never thought I'd say something nice about Google Chrome, but this feature was the only reason that I sometimes used that browser instead of Firefox. The split view is incredibly handy when you're looking at a web application and an observability tool for that web application at the same time.
In my state, you can buy products with pseudoephedrine over the counter, but the law requires you to show ID to the pharmacist who then logs your name and address. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires scanning or storing the customer's ID, and I don't know why anyone would agree to let them do it.
>[...] but the law requires you to show ID to the pharmacist who then logs your name and address. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires scanning or storing the customer's ID, and I don't know why anyone would agree to let them do it.
there is very little difference except one is manual input and one is automated input. so, i am not quite sure i am understanding your objection to one and not the other. either your are ok with your information being recorded, or you arent -- the "how it is entered into the recording system" part seems immaterial to me.
At least where I live, the only information they log when looking at my ID is my name and address. Scanning my ID gives them additional information, which increases the vulnerability.
I don't trust them to store it securely nor to avoid the temptation to use that information for other purposes. The only countermeasure is to prevent them from having that information in the first place.
what other information are you concerned about, present on your id, which is not trivially obtainable by already having your name and address? your height and whether you need glasses is hardly sensitive information (and already available to them -- they record the premises and have your time of purchase).
i dont trust them to store it securely either. my objection is to being okay with your information being placed into a database when that information is manually input, but not okay with it being scanned in. if you arent okay with one method, i dont understand why you would be okay with the other.
we are in agreement that the fact that some random company has to store my information at all is sucky.
I'd say the two most important are the date of birth and document ID (e.g., driver's license number). Both are required by the AAMVA 2D barcode standard used for driver's license in the US and both are extremely valuable for identity theft.
Furthermore, the driver's license number is a primary key that could used to join records created by the scan with records in other datasets, potentially giving the company much more information about the customer than they ever realized or agreed to provide.
There's a major difference -- one involved providing a copy of your ID to a 3rd party and the other does not.
I don't want my identity stolen after I bought some cough syrupe because some dirt-bag third party ID management company that was contracted by a pharmacy didn't do their job.
>There's a major difference -- one involved providing a copy of your ID to a 3rd party and the other does not.
they arent scanning as in photocopying. they are scanning the barcode to get the name/address information
the 3rd party (pharmacy, in this case) gets and keeps the information in both scenarios.
>dirt-bag third party ID management company
this isnt online age-verification stuff. the pharmacy itself is typically the one storing the information, and querying it against a government database.
> it's 'do I have faith in all future forms of government who will have access to this data'
And even this assumes that the government can and will protect the data from the various bad actors who want it, something they have absolutely failed to do on multiple occasions.
The article title ought to name the company (Umart). I assume they didn't because they want the clicks, but I'd argue that giving Umart the bad publicity they deserve would make companies reconsider whether to implement anti-customer policies like this.
And eventually, future calculations from CBS about whether they have more to lose by suppressing the story or airing it will favor the latter. Or so few people will still watch CBS that their business fails. Either way, it's a win.
This is insufficient, since the 22nd amendment only limits the number of terms to which a president can be elected. A president can legally serve longer than that.
For example, consider a president who dies in office a few days into the term. The VP becomes president, serves out the remainder of that four-year term and then be elected for two more terms. The statute of limitations would therefore need to be 12 years or more to have the desired effect.
> For example, consider a president who dies in office a few days into the term. The VP becomes president, serves out the remainder of that four-year term and then be elected for two more terms
text of the 22nd amendment covers that. serving more than 2 years of someone else's term means you can only be elected once.
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
While I certainly understand the appeal of tax arbitrage, California has at least one thing going for it. Unlike most states, it generally disallows non-compete clauses as a matter of public policy.
Tech thrives on the mobility of talent, so it's no coincidence that California is where the tech industry thrives. Almost 70 years ago, eight engineers at Shockley Semiconductor had a better idea and left to start Fairchild Semiconductor. That led to Intel, AMD, and National Semiconductor, later spawning NVIDIA, SGI, Qualcomm, and ultimately creating trillions of dollars in wealth. No other state will ever overtake California's dominance here unless it allows for that same mobility of talent. Almost every state tries to _attract_ billionaires these days, but this is one reason why most states can't _create_ them.
California has a lot going for it. Great geography, lots of university, great talent, talent with many different backgrounds, momentum from industry. Non compete non-enforcement also exist in places like North Dakota (which has nearly as a high a GDP/cap), but they can't offer a lot of these other things.
In many ways California is just being capitalist like the "actual" capitalist and taxing whatever the market will bear. It will probably bear a lot in California. There's no need for them to dress it up as a social project, it's just the ruthless gears of the state run by people with personalities nearly identical to the CEOs that would also do the same thing in their shoes.
The poor will continue to suffer the ~same fate and the friends of politicians will continue to be enriched. The middle class sees maybe the ever tiniest budge from one or two billionaires pulling out along with whatever jobs their capital provides, but otherwise their lives basically move on as usual and they can preach about their support for the poor using someone else's dime at almost no risk to themselves.
Much like an operating system promises to make everything easy if you use its APIs for file I/O instead of implementing your own low-level code to control the hardware yourself. Personally, I'd much rather think about storage in terms of files instead of sectors on a disk.
Sure, you can poke around in the settings and find one that you believe opts you out, but in lieu of clear and explicit instructions from GitHub, you'll have no way to find out. Only the possibility of finding out later that you guessed wrong.
reply