They do not let you change the ID, it is provided by an API as is the one that is per app/per phone. Nothing in auto rotating this would make it materially harder to track users across multiple apps. Its just more effort.
How so? You are certainly allowed to report your IDFA back to the server or it would serve no purpose at all. You are also allowed to report back the ID you get back that is App/phone specific (that is, unique per app, per phone). That alone is enough to create a long running list of IDs associated with a phone on your server. Any of this could be done with fairly innocuous calls that would never raise any eyebrows at all.
If apple does this people will simply save the ID locally and when the app launches and the ID that the system gives you doesn't match the one you have saved you make a call to record the new ID and bingo you have a running, relatively up to date ID tied to a history of different IDs as the same devic.
Dealing with the homeless is a different problem from the issue of using minor tickets and fines piled on the poor to raise funds for a city which is what we were talking about. Dealing with homelessness is a totally different issue. Fining or arresting the homeless people is a waste of time, they can't pay the fine and putting them in jail just costs money, more money than it would cost to get them off the street. Its not a trivial problem and I would agree that Seattle is mismanaging it.
But none of that has anything to do with the way many municipalities fine and then jail people for minor infractions, they pile fines onto people who can barely afford to live and then eventually they have to pay to jail them... what is the point of that? What benefit does it serve for society? If anything it just creates more homeless that need to be dealt with.
community service? It could save us money on cleaning up highways and parks and shit and it doesn't cost as much as locking someone up.
Of course there are those who work 3 jobs just to survive who might not be able to work community service... but presumably they at least have the income you could garnish... Its not an easy solution as long as 40 hours a week doesn't, at minimum, provide you enough to live off of.
So its ok to prevent people from voting if the cost benefit ratio is not good? What is the benefit of people being allowed to vote (I suppose that depends on if they vote they way you want them to eh?)
And while we are on the subject, what is the cost of not implementing voter ID. Given that we don't have any evidence that this kind of voter fraud is actually wide spread enough to be an issue how much benefit is there to outweigh the cost of impelemthing voter ID and making sure that we don't disenfranchise people through this voter ID?
If they are being illegally sublet then they are not "affordable." They are being sub-letted out at a profit, illegally, by the people who's rent is being controlled by the government.
If the people who were the original tenants under rent control still live in the apartment then the rent control is valid and they are allowed to stay at the low rent as the law intended.
Its unlikely that this violates any leases. The lease does, generally, promise that public areas are not monitored and it would depend on your local laws if they even need to tell you that the public areas are monitored. Its possible that anything might be put in a lease but it is not something that is a part of a standard lease and you should not have any expectation of privacy outside of your unit because as soon as you leave your unit you are in a public and shared space.
Landlords can absolutely place restrictions on guests, particularly overnight guests. Many standard leases limit the amount of time any guest may stay including no overnight guests. While no guests at all might not hold up the landlord has huge leeway to restrict guests staying on the premises and can restrict areas that they have access to outside of your apartment (any common areas in the building). Further, a landlord my also bar a particular guest from the premises if the guest violates any of the rules of the building or the law.
Keeping the information from law enforcement makes the whole system useless. If you find that your Tennant is violating the lease, subletting illegally, over occupying the property or what have you then you need to go to the police to have them evicted. The police will want evidence and the system provides that. This is almost certainly the exact use case the landlord has for installing the system, monitoring access to their property.
And a good way to make money. Google makes money off android with data gathering, use of google services for more data gathering and then ultimately advertising. What is Oracle going to do? Charge phone manufacturers for use of their OS that is identical to googles? They aren't set up to make money off of something like android.
Netflix never supports any integration... they don't even work with search on any platform I'm aware of. They want to be the one and only but might find themselves in for a rude awakening as new services start to eat their lunch. If I'm signed up for a number of services Im likely to lean heavily on platform based searches (particularly as voice search has become more popular) if results aren't showing up for Netflix I might find myself going to the app less and less, which might result in ultimately dropping the service.
While this would be ideal there is actually another impact. If your electricity costs from coal went up because we charged them for the externalized environmental damage that they do then the cost of coal power would be a lot closer to the cost of other, cleaner methods of power production... maybe even higher than some cleaner methods.... and people would be more likely to choose the cleaner methods for supplying their power.
Certainly spending that money on mitigating the impact would be great, but raising the price of things tends to impact the demand for them.
The app I currently work on uses a web view to let a user sign up for a service... that service is required to make the app work. It opens a web view where you can enter your information and credit card and sign up for a service, not physical goods, with a monthly recurring fee.... most users wouldn't eve notice they aren't in native code when signing up.
Now... if Spotify tried exactly the same thing as my current app and got denied while my app and others like it are approved that would be one thing but I haven't seen anything from Spotify that implies that they have ever tried that and been denied which is likely to tank their case pretty damn hard. If my company used in app purchases to manage the subscription to a service we would have to pay apple 30% as well... these are the rules and everyone plays by them.
What Spotify would need to show is that they tried to do things that other apps are allowed to do and got denied for it, which, if true, should be trivial.. what they want is to be able to use apple's in app purchase mechanism without paying the percentage that everyone else who uses apple's in app purchase feature pays.
In what way is Spotify locked out of Siri? They opened up Siri to third party integrations... are they supposed to do the work for Spotify?
If Apple Music is so terrible Spotify should have no trouble eating their lunch... all they need to do is take credit card payments directly instead of using in app purchases.
In what way is Spotify being prevented from contacting its users. Has apple blocked their push notification ability?
Spotify doesn't pay a damn thing to apple for hosting their app, they do pay for processing purchases in the app using the App Store in app purchase method.... which they could easily avoid by simply pushing the user out of the app or even taking credit card information in the app. I have made a retail app on iOS, you could put things in your cart, put in your credit card info and check out just like on a web page and apple didn't get a dime for it.... Spotify could absolutely do that. They could probably even use Apple Pay and not pay a dime to apple (I dont know how Apple Pay handles subscription style payments). What they cannot do is use the App Store in app purchase feature that auto bills the credit card associated with the Apple ID without paying a fee.
They have options, they just don't want to use them
Yeah, much better to give a bunch of my money to the government so it can give tax breaks to billionaires and subsidies for fossil fuel companies.... that's not a hand out at all.
In the end it won't be you OR me, it will be us CRUSHED by them.
Dude, the soundtrack was pulled directly from the era the movie is based in. I don't really get the dissatisfaction over the fact that they used a bunch of 90s songs in a 90s movie.
Its not as if this clown has seen the movie in question though... I went to see it and it was absolutely not divisive and people saying that it is either haven't seen it and are trolling or are serious fucking snowflakes getting offended at nothing. How he claims to have liked other movies is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you can read up on what that switch actually means
https://possiblemobile.com/201...
They do not let you change the ID, it is provided by an API as is the one that is per app/per phone. Nothing in auto rotating this would make it materially harder to track users across multiple apps. Its just more effort.
How so? You are certainly allowed to report your IDFA back to the server or it would serve no purpose at all. You are also allowed to report back the ID you get back that is App/phone specific (that is, unique per app, per phone). That alone is enough to create a long running list of IDs associated with a phone on your server. Any of this could be done with fairly innocuous calls that would never raise any eyebrows at all.
If apple does this people will simply save the ID locally and when the app launches and the ID that the system gives you doesn't match the one you have saved you make a call to record the new ID and bingo you have a running, relatively up to date ID tied to a history of different IDs as the same devic.
Dealing with the homeless is a different problem from the issue of using minor tickets and fines piled on the poor to raise funds for a city which is what we were talking about. Dealing with homelessness is a totally different issue. Fining or arresting the homeless people is a waste of time, they can't pay the fine and putting them in jail just costs money, more money than it would cost to get them off the street. Its not a trivial problem and I would agree that Seattle is mismanaging it.
But none of that has anything to do with the way many municipalities fine and then jail people for minor infractions, they pile fines onto people who can barely afford to live and then eventually they have to pay to jail them... what is the point of that? What benefit does it serve for society? If anything it just creates more homeless that need to be dealt with.
community service? It could save us money on cleaning up highways and parks and shit and it doesn't cost as much as locking someone up.
Of course there are those who work 3 jobs just to survive who might not be able to work community service... but presumably they at least have the income you could garnish... Its not an easy solution as long as 40 hours a week doesn't, at minimum, provide you enough to live off of.
So its ok to prevent people from voting if the cost benefit ratio is not good? What is the benefit of people being allowed to vote (I suppose that depends on if they vote they way you want them to eh?)
And while we are on the subject, what is the cost of not implementing voter ID. Given that we don't have any evidence that this kind of voter fraud is actually wide spread enough to be an issue how much benefit is there to outweigh the cost of impelemthing voter ID and making sure that we don't disenfranchise people through this voter ID?
If they are being illegally sublet then they are not "affordable." They are being sub-letted out at a profit, illegally, by the people who's rent is being controlled by the government.
If the people who were the original tenants under rent control still live in the apartment then the rent control is valid and they are allowed to stay at the low rent as the law intended.
Its unlikely that this violates any leases. The lease does, generally, promise that public areas are not monitored and it would depend on your local laws if they even need to tell you that the public areas are monitored. Its possible that anything might be put in a lease but it is not something that is a part of a standard lease and you should not have any expectation of privacy outside of your unit because as soon as you leave your unit you are in a public and shared space.
Landlords can absolutely place restrictions on guests, particularly overnight guests. Many standard leases limit the amount of time any guest may stay including no overnight guests. While no guests at all might not hold up the landlord has huge leeway to restrict guests staying on the premises and can restrict areas that they have access to outside of your apartment (any common areas in the building). Further, a landlord my also bar a particular guest from the premises if the guest violates any of the rules of the building or the law.
Keeping the information from law enforcement makes the whole system useless. If you find that your Tennant is violating the lease, subletting illegally, over occupying the property or what have you then you need to go to the police to have them evicted. The police will want evidence and the system provides that. This is almost certainly the exact use case the landlord has for installing the system, monitoring access to their property.
And a good way to make money. Google makes money off android with data gathering, use of google services for more data gathering and then ultimately advertising. What is Oracle going to do? Charge phone manufacturers for use of their OS that is identical to googles? They aren't set up to make money off of something like android.
Those artists are going to have a hell of a time when nobody links to their work
Netflix never supports any integration... they don't even work with search on any platform I'm aware of. They want to be the one and only but might find themselves in for a rude awakening as new services start to eat their lunch. If I'm signed up for a number of services Im likely to lean heavily on platform based searches (particularly as voice search has become more popular) if results aren't showing up for Netflix I might find myself going to the app less and less, which might result in ultimately dropping the service.
While this would be ideal there is actually another impact. If your electricity costs from coal went up because we charged them for the externalized environmental damage that they do then the cost of coal power would be a lot closer to the cost of other, cleaner methods of power production... maybe even higher than some cleaner methods.... and people would be more likely to choose the cleaner methods for supplying their power.
Certainly spending that money on mitigating the impact would be great, but raising the price of things tends to impact the demand for them.
The app I currently work on uses a web view to let a user sign up for a service... that service is required to make the app work. It opens a web view where you can enter your information and credit card and sign up for a service, not physical goods, with a monthly recurring fee.... most users wouldn't eve notice they aren't in native code when signing up.
Now... if Spotify tried exactly the same thing as my current app and got denied while my app and others like it are approved that would be one thing but I haven't seen anything from Spotify that implies that they have ever tried that and been denied which is likely to tank their case pretty damn hard. If my company used in app purchases to manage the subscription to a service we would have to pay apple 30% as well... these are the rules and everyone plays by them.
What Spotify would need to show is that they tried to do things that other apps are allowed to do and got denied for it, which, if true, should be trivial.. what they want is to be able to use apple's in app purchase mechanism without paying the percentage that everyone else who uses apple's in app purchase feature pays.
I literally explained the one thing that they choose to do that causes them to pay apple... maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.
In what way is Spotify locked out of Siri? They opened up Siri to third party integrations... are they supposed to do the work for Spotify?
If Apple Music is so terrible Spotify should have no trouble eating their lunch... all they need to do is take credit card payments directly instead of using in app purchases.
In what way is Spotify being prevented from contacting its users. Has apple blocked their push notification ability?
Spotify doesn't pay a damn thing to apple for hosting their app, they do pay for processing purchases in the app using the App Store in app purchase method.... which they could easily avoid by simply pushing the user out of the app or even taking credit card information in the app. I have made a retail app on iOS, you could put things in your cart, put in your credit card info and check out just like on a web page and apple didn't get a dime for it.... Spotify could absolutely do that. They could probably even use Apple Pay and not pay a dime to apple (I dont know how Apple Pay handles subscription style payments). What they cannot do is use the App Store in app purchase feature that auto bills the credit card associated with the Apple ID without paying a fee.
They have options, they just don't want to use them
corrosion, of course, being the one thing Toyota can't seem to figure out....
Yeah, much better to give a bunch of my money to the government so it can give tax breaks to billionaires and subsidies for fossil fuel companies.... that's not a hand out at all.
In the end it won't be you OR me, it will be us CRUSHED by them.
I'm pretty sure I could get you to put your finger on the sensor after hitting you a few times with a 5 dollar wrench.
Dude, the soundtrack was pulled directly from the era the movie is based in. I don't really get the dissatisfaction over the fact that they used a bunch of 90s songs in a 90s movie.
Its not as if this clown has seen the movie in question though... I went to see it and it was absolutely not divisive and people saying that it is either haven't seen it and are trolling or are serious fucking snowflakes getting offended at nothing. How he claims to have liked other movies is irrelevant.
People should already be demanding refunds as Tesla has admitted that they will never deliver what is promised.