Something tells me most hobbyists are not doing their car battery welding on-the-fly in -60F weather in the middle of Sibera with the stakes of failure being freezing to death though.
I inferred that he was simply saying the fact of using chained car batteries for welding is hardcore, which I obviously think is not as I've seen it done by many people in many places.
As for the situation in this context though - sure, that could be said to be hardcore.
I download and use the app despite the name. I’m not okay with it, but I need the features it offers and there isn’t a better alternative with a better name. There used to be (called Caffeine) but it disappeared from the store and I’m not sure why.
Just because people use the app doesn’t mean they like the name.
> They are saying they will not sell it in their app store under that name.
But they were indeed selling it under that name for 6 years!
How would you like it if you spend a lot of money to advertise your company or product and create a brand value to it, to one day Apple telling you that they would like you to change the name or they will not distribute it on their store?
Yes, the app store is a closed environment where they can dictate some terms. But don't forget that the developers PAY THEM to use it, and as such their terms cannot trump the consumer laws that exist to protect against such abuse. (By the way, "my shop, my terms" have already faced legal scrutiny some of which were found to be illegal - popular ones include refusing to serve people of colour or gays.)
They are also doing everything they can to block people from distributing apps outside of their walled garden.
So they are in fact telling the author that he can't call his app whatever he wants. Because if he does, they will do everything they can to prevent anyone else from ever using that app.
They probably want their users to use their proprietary store, but I got a new MacBook Pro for work in September and I installed everything I needed and wanted using Hombrew and brew cask, so I didn't use the Apple Store at all. You can also Download .dmf files and install Apps that way. What is it that you say they do to prevent people installing Apps outside the Apple Store?
Apple requires software to be "notarized" (signed by apple) be able to run on newer Macs. Apple also blocks developers they do not like from notarizing apps. See Apple vs Epic.
You might be able to bypass the notarization requirement as an end-user, if you have enough technical know-how, but good luck explaining that to your customers. Especially when all the dialogs are calling your software malicious, untrustworthy, etc.
This is not exactly true and you know it. For example:
>if you have enough technical know-how
You right click the app and then click open.
>Especially when all the dialogs are calling your software malicious, untrustworthy, etc.
Another lie. The dialog says "this is from an unidentified developer" and does not say anything about being malicious or untrustworthy. What is your beef with Apple that you're so willing to say so many outright lies on a forum filled with people who know better and can call you out on it?
Windows does this with UAC. Many Linux distros require executables to be explicitly set with the +x flag. macOS is not unique in this, and like with the other OSes it's a security feature.
There's no need to be confrontational. Apple themselves say that software must be notarized going forward in Catalina, as GateKeeper will check all apps that are quarantined, which is essentially all apps that you download from the internet. Apple would very much like you to notarize your applications and the workaround you provided is not intended to be a general-purpose solution.
GateKeeper will also flag your app as malicious and having the potential to damage your Mac if Apple revokes your certificate, which they have done in the past by mistake.
> Beginning in macOS 10.14.5, software signed with a new Developer ID certificate and all new or updated kernel extensions must be notarized to run. Beginning in macOS 10.15, all software built after June 1, 2019, and distributed with Developer ID must be notarized
>They are also doing everything they can to block people from distributing apps outside of their walled garden.
People keep saying that but nothing on my Mac has ever stopped me from installing whatever software I want. I wish people would stop repeating this lie.
I must have forgotten it because I can open the Epic store and play Fortnite on my Mac right now without any warnings. I actually just downloaded the installer right from epicgames.com and it installed just fine. Apple doesn't even try to stop me.
I remember Apple revoking Epic's access to Apple's developer tools because of a disagreement over their developer program TOS, but that only stops Epic from using Apple's tools. It does not prevent me from installing any software.
I have a ton of software on my Mac that's not part of the Apple developer program and the developers have never asked Apple's permission nor given Apple any money for the software and Apple has never once tried to block those developers from creating that software or me from installing and running it.
Yes, there were lawsuits and the courts forced Apple to stop their ridiculous behavior. That is why you can do this right now. Not because of Apple's goodwill, quite the contrary.
This isn't unique to Apple. Debian and other Linux distributions have also had similar discussions when considering the distribution of packages with obscene, morally repugnant or inappropriate names, as well as the package contents themselves.
Whether it's a commercial entity or a volunteer organisation, there are considerations regarding image and reputation. People can and will push the boundaries of what is acceptable, and somewhere you're going to have to draw a line.
The difference is that Debian or others still give both the users and the developers a CHOICE to distribute / acquire the app through other means. Apple cripples (and even outright denies this) on some of its platforms.
Handy, but not exactly easy on the eyes. I usually just us the -t flag to pass it seconds, like 'caffeinate -t 3600' to prevent sleep for the next hour.
I use it on my work computer and it's not a word I'm comfortable showing to clients. You never know who may have had (or still does have) an addiction, and I also don't want them seeing it and thinking I have an addiction since that could be bad for business.
I prefer to reject the process of turning a technical neutral term into some kind of bad word.
If a thing isn't bad, then it isn't, and if someone is ignorant and makes associations and assumptions that are wrong or unsupported, then I'd rather add my tiny influence against that rather than help it.
Or do you yourself do the same thing to your clients? What features of your clients do you use to prejudge them and make unfounded assumptions about them? Should your clients worry what clothes they wear in case you think it means they are gay, which maybe you associate with having Aids... Personally I woukd think things like that are none of my business but apparently you don't think like that.
Please don't smooth the way for the wrong things. I can't demand, obviously, that's why it's a request with the word please.
It seems to be a small thing but big things are made out of small things, and you and I can only do small things. All we have is the choice of which kinds of small things we do.
There is a command line tool called caffeinate that ships with Mac OS. Maybe Apple didn’t like somebody using something so similar their system utility name.
Originally I thought it was the same name, so this seems much less likely now that they're merely similar.
I removed Caffeine from the App Store when Apple started complaining that a click on a menu bar icon for an app without a dock icon must always show a menu (offering a Quit option). I wanted it to toggle the active state instead and show the menu on right-click/cmd-click.
Did you just not feel like arguing with the app store review team or was it a clear decision between changing it or leaving the app store? The author of amphetamine told that there was a similar problem but apparently he could settle this.
> Amphetamine updates have been rejected by Apple on numerous occasions. One time, Apple’s App Review Team did not like my “Preview” screen shots. Another time, Apple objected to the default behavior when clicking Amphetamine’s menu bar icon, saying it must open the menu by default and not start a session.
> I removed Caffeine from the App Store when Apple started complaining
Good for you! That is exactly what everyone needs do when Apple starts being pointlessly petty. Yes, operating systems have UI guidelines. But they are guidelines - sometimes a developer may come up with something better, especially for power users, and no such developer should have to waste time trying to communicate and convince some committee of this, and worse, wait for an approval from them to launch the product.
In my opinion they made the right choice here -- that is a much different behaviour than any other kind of menu bar icon has and it would be inconsistent with every other app and the OS itself.
It's a neat idea but that is just not the use case the menu bar was designed around and I don't think it makes sense for individual apps to go against the current in that way
Oh jeez my worst nightmare might just be going to a Meetup without knowing how many people I should expect and ending up being the only one who showed up. If Meetup didn’t tell me how many people RSVP’d I’d never go to any of them.
Pre-covid I went to bars a lot to hang out. Ranging from suburban “family dining” bars to downtown dive bars to hipster breweries, I’ve been a regular at a lot in the last 10-15 years. Most people at my bars come in with friends and really only talk to existing friends or friends of friends. Maybe/rarely the strangers directly next to them if they’re feeling extra social, but not much more than a bit of small talk. From the outside a bar looks like a great place to meet new people and make new friends but in my experience that’s just what it looks like and not how it is.
The only new people I’ve met at bars are friends of friends, not random strangers. And when people are with their group of friends, it’s hard for a stranger to jump into that dynamic.
Yeah, it's pretty tough, especially the older you get. You need to find people that are also looking for friends, it makes it much easier. A good opportunity is to look for language exchange or expats groups, local people are always very welcome in my experience since they are rare.
It depends on the bar. If you already are well-established socially somewhere, you usually tend to self-select into establishments that kind of cater to those established friend groups.
For recent transplants they roam bars until they find one with more singles and folks looking for social interaction. They do exist, but are probably more rare.
My theory of course is that the latter type of bar morphs over time (decade+) into the prior type of bar as "friend groups" get established at the new place. The new place slowly turns into the old hangout spot.
Going to bars in other countries and/or frequenting bars that attract tourists is the solution to your problem. You'll have less inhibition when traveling, or at least I do. I would never start a conversation with a stranger in the US, but it just feels...easier when abroad?
My dad co-owned a small company in the early 90s and they just got new computers but he convinced the rest of the owners that they needed to invest in serial network equipment “to share files”. In reality they ended up playing multiplayer Doom with it.
Heck I’m in my 30s and I do that sometimes. I just set up a new Mac after using an iPad Pro for a few months and the number of times I touched the screen is embarrassing.
For the most part we don’t learn about them because we don’t know a lot about them. Many of the pre-Colombian civilizations either didn’t build permanent structures or built them from wood that’s long since rotted away. With a few exceptions they also didn’t congregate in large stationary cities where we can dig to find hundreds/thousands of years of artifacts in the same place . Again with a few exceptions, they also didn’t write down their history for us to read it.
As an American we only learn fairly superficial details about the people who were here before us, because we know they existed but there’s just not a lot of historical record. Look up Cahokia, which was a massive city (at Cahokia’s peak it likely had more residents than London did at the same time). And yet all that remains is some piles of dirt.
There is an additional complication too: North American archaeologists have to contend with modern descendants of indigenous cultures, who frequently insist that digs be halted and filled in, remains be reburied, and artifacts be repatriated to private owners.
The efforts by assorted tribes against archaeology culminated in NAGPRA, which has hamstrung researchers quite severely.
(Potential HN argument defuser: I'm not making a statement here on cultural values, merely observing that North American archaeology has an additional unique hurdle to understanding cultures of the past.)
That made me smile because it's a little the opposite of what happen in many places in Europe. When somebody try to build something new, they have to contend with the archaeologists, who frequently insist that the construction is halted and they start to dig there.
FWIW that's very close to California state law, one of my buddies is that guy who can tell the construction workers to drop everything (they hate him!)
As someone that's an archeologist in North America and has dealt with NAGPRA... Every country ought to have something similar. It's not ideal and I could go on for as long as anyone about its flaws, but giving people control over their heritage is a non-negotiable position for me.
The most succinct explanation is that it's simply professional ethics, with lots of good reasons behind it. In no particular order or comprehensiveness:
1. There's a long history of what is best described as stealing by archaeologists/anthropologists for museums and as a means of colonial control (e.g. looting the Benin bronzes). We want to stay far away from even the appearance of that.
2. Regardless of whether it's logical or not, people can have significant emotional identification with artifacts, sites, and remains. That's a big part of why we want to study them at all. For instance, you'd probably be offended by archaeologists walking into your yard and digging up a loved one's remains, or stealing the constitution of your country, dynamiting St. Paul's Cathedral, etc without at least asking the relevant authorities.
3. In almost all cases, we don't need any individual site or artifact. There are entire databases full of known sites we've never gotten around to excavating, due to time, budget, remoteness, or lack of research questions and people to answer them. The academic value of having one more site or artifact is typically small, while there's a huge potential for harm to an often nebulous "someone". There have been cases where this math is different because of the circumstances of a particular find(e.g. kennewick man), but these are the exception rather than the rule.
4. Artifacts are always part of a wider record, and we as a community are going to have to work with this group in the future. If people are continually feeling screwed over when we don't consider their input, they'll eventually stop helping us (providing cultural input, labor, access to other artifacts/records, land access, legal permissions, they may involve the legal system etc). There are communities where this has already happened and lack of access to them has severely limited later academic work.
5. People with a relationship to the artifacts or remains often have a valuable perspective to contribute. "Academics" (who are not a unified group either) often do better work when they consider local input, and it can help to resolve ambiguous or unclear situations. One famous example came up in what's called the Magician's tomb at Ridge Ruin, where there was an unusually rich grave that the leading archaeologist had difficulty interpreting. He brought in some Hopi (distant descendants), who were able to identify and share how some of the goods would have been used in modern times, which helped contextualize the grave and provided a starting point for future discussions.
6. It's generally considered a human rights violation if the "not asking" is egregious enough.
7. If you don't involve the locals and show them what's up, they get distrustful. This can manifest as petty thievery, destruction of excavations-in-progress, legal issues, and grave robbing.
There are probably a lot more good reasons, but this is what immediately came to mind. What NAGPRA did was establish that this basic respect was required of everyone touching native artifacts, and that while researchers could still do work that benefited scientific understanding, they had to either justify that need or consult with the affected parties. It also did some other good things like establish procedures for repatriation, which certain institutions had been notoriously slow to do for themselves.
Many remains of the mound building civilizations in the present-day US were plowed away, as they were in prime farming geography. You're right that many of the structures were made of wood and dirt that are less lasting than stone, but there were a large number of them that were lost through field preparation. The reasons for this are complex, including a disregard for Native American structures, but in many cases people just didn't know what they were.
The mound building civilizations of North America are fascinating to me, not the least of which is because of the pyramidal-mound structures of Central America.
There are several piles of dirt in Cahokia. Part of the trouble is there has never been a serious attempt to uncover and restore the site. But unlike say Machu Pichu or Chichen Itza, it's on the shore of the Missippi with a highway cutting through it and a few centuries of both flooding and human development on top of what could be there.
What's sad is that it's barely outside St. Louis and isn't a part of their tourist identity, despite basically being on top of one of the oldest settlements in North America.
Cahokia is actually among the newest settlements among North American civilization: it peaks around 1100, fully collapsing by around 1350. The earliest mound building site I'm aware of is Poverty Point, which begins to be built around 1800 BC. The Southwest cultures (e.g., Ancestral Pueblo) are developing clear settlements by around 750. Moving into Mesoamerica, Teotihuacan collapses sometime in the 500s, and dates back to perhaps 1-ish. Contemporary with them is the Classical Maya. San Lorenzo is the oldest Olmec center, dating back to 1200 BC-ish.
And what cultures that did survive the Colombian exchange were massively changed to the point where it’s very hard to determine what they looked like before. This means that a lot of the traditions that survived into the 1800s (when good written records start) are probably not terribly representative of what might have existed in the centuries prior.
The horse in particular changed everything, and created the archetypical Buffalo hunting nomad of the Great Plains, a cultural arrangement that did not exist in North America before the introduction of the horse.
We've infested our continent pretty comprehensively. My wife who grew up around Los Alamos remembers exploring mesa tops as a kid with other kids. The boys would look the ruins and toss everything over the side to see it smash - pots, stones, whatever. The structures got pushed over and scattered.
We've only fairly recently gotten to value antiquities I suppose. In the US anyway.
The Casa grande ruins aren't 2k years old. The main structure is a classic Hohokam pueblo, from around the 13th century as I recall with a few hundred years of earlier canal systems and villages nearby. You have to go a bit south to Tucson to see the 2-4k year old stuff.
I am obsessed with games or toys that replicate chaos or spreading disasters, like fire spreading in Far Cry 2 or water flooding in Cities: Skylines or collapsing buildings in the newer Battlefield games. I wish there were more games with unscripted chaos.
I recommend you get Noita on Steam. It's a falling sand style game where you are a little wizard whose wands are built from a little Programmingesque component system.
Teardown is probably the state of the art in unscripted destruction. Frankly, there hasn't been a lot of innovation in deep environmental interaction in AAA games for some time. Far Cry 2 still remains a highlight 12 years later.
Teardown is amazing, I for sure thought it would be another tech demo that never released but they made a fully playable game with gameplay loops and story out of it.
About 15 years ago at night I crashed my car into a bunch of pallets that had fallen off a trailer driving in front of me with no lights on it. The driver kept going but the police tracked him down to a pallet recycling company just a few miles down the road. Turns out he was an employee at a local warehouse and he was stealing their extra pallets for some extra money. His trailer had a couple dozen pallets before they fell off.
