Exactly. They exaggerate access everywhere else (e.g. if, as self-reported by ISP X, anyone in the county has the option for broadband from ISP X, everyone in the county is regarded as having broadband access offered from ISP X according to the FCC’s current methodology, even if it’s just that one customer actually being offered broadband), so they’re simply being consistent here.
Actually, it is. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
While it's true that the kill switch exists, it isn't what happens when Apple loses the license to content or a developer pulls their app under normal conditions, nor is it related in any way to what happened here or what we're talking about. The only times I'm aware of the kill switch being used are for malware apps, and even then, Apple has only ever used it sparingly.
Just to highlight how loathe Apple is to use the kill switch, I once purchased an app that—if the user entered a particular sequence of buttons—turned the phone into a WiFi hotspot without the need for any jailbreaking. This was back in the time when carriers didn't allow iPhones to be used that way. Apple yanked the app from the store within a few hours of the sequence going viral, but you know what they didn't do? Delete it from my devices or prevent me from using it in any way. I used that app for years, and then it went with me to the next phone, and the one after that, until it finally stopped working years and years later after an OS update dropped compatibility for apps that hadn't been updated.
So yes, while they can kill apps (to which I never suggested otherwise), they didn't do that here, so let's stay on topic.
I completely agree, but I also think this summary is being a bit unfair. Apple didn't reach into his hard drive to delete his local copies. They simply pulled the listing from their store, meaning that new downloads and streaming are no longer possible.
It's the same practice they've had across all their services for years. When a developer pulls an app from the app store, the app's users get to keep their local copies, can transfer them to new devices, and can otherwise use them without issue. Same thing for films. My wife had a dozen films she had purchased in iTunes before we got married, and they all still work fine (though these days I have her buying DRM-free so that we can get them into Plex more easily). I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Apple lost the rights to distribute some of her films, but we'd likely never know.
I was sitting out on a patio at a restaurant last week, with a college-aged guy doing some form of smoking at the table next to us. We had maple-bacon smoke wafting over us for the better part of 30 minutes as he blew big, billowing plumes for his own amusement.
Maple-bacon scented patios may sound like some people's idea of a pleasant evening, but as someone with asthma, it's not unusual for me to feel my airways closing up when I'm exposed to strong scents, which I've had happen before with e-cigs and vaporizers. Thankfully, nothing happened this time, so it was little more than a random thing that happened that evening, but I don't want to see a return to the way things were a few decades ago. People always talk about the big risks when it comes to this stuff—addiction, cancer, death—but we shouldn't forget that there's a significant decrease in the quality of life for others when being able to breathe easily is something they need to concern themselves with.
...and no one thought to point out that iPads have headphone jacks, making all of this moot? That quote about needing three adapters was based on what would happen if Apple were to remove the headphone jack from the iPad, but that’s not how things are now. But hey, you won’t get an outcry from that, let’s omit the preceding line from the quote so that we can take it out of context and stir up a tempest in a teacup.
What was actually said was:
But if the rumors are true that this year’s iPad Pros don’t have headphone jacks, this doesn’t make much sense at all. This would mean someone with a Mac, iPhone, and iPad would need three different headphone adapters.
I'm just waiting for the day that Netflix or whoever institutes a "Comcast Customer Fee" for all customers of Comcast, with a nice information bubble explaining how Comcast is abusing access to its own customers to charge Netflix extra—despite having already been paid by those customers to retrieve the requested data and having already adopted peering agreements with Netflix's ISP to deliver the requested data—which has forced Netflix to institute a surcharge for Comcast's customers to make up the difference. Put the information in front of normal people, hit them in the wallet where it counts, and just wait to see how long Comcast can maintain that policy.
Ehh, who am I kidding? Given the lack of competition, they can probably maintain it indefinitely...
It's been quite awhile since the default behavior was to give apps unfettered access to the system, specifically because of malicious apps doing malicious things. These days, there are permissions that need to be requested for all sorts of actions, and if you try to request low level access, people tend to sit up, take notice, and start asking questions about what your app is doing and why it's doing it.
On the other hand, having permission to play sound and listen via the mic doesn't get you much, and as a result generally hasn't been worthy of significant scrutiny during app review or otherwise, at least so far as security goes (though mic access is obviously a privacy concern). But if you can leverage those simple permissions to unlock unrestricted access to the device? Now, that's something.
That's so odd. My copy of the summary says "at least 30%", which is pretty much the exact opposite of "up to 30%". You can find the copy I'm reading right at the top of this page. Any chance you could link to the copy of the summary you're reading where it says "up to 30%"? I'm having trouble finding it.
How is this supposed to work anyway? Say Netflix has 3000 films available for streaming today in a particular country. Replacing a third of them would mean needing to find 1000 local films, which would likely require scraping the bottom of the barrel in the case of countries that lack a film scene. That's already problematic enough as it is, but let's ignore it for the moment. More worrying is that in some of these countries, the film scene likely isn't large enough to warrant more than a handful of distributors for theatrically-released, domestic films. This law—at least as it's explained in the summary—would seat those distributors in a disproportionate and unfair position at the negotiating table, since they know that Netflix has no choice but to work with them. They're basically being given the tools to extort Netflix legally.
In many ways, this bears a striking similarity to another form of intellectual property: standards-essential patents that companies have no choice but to use if they want to build a product in that space. In the case of standards-essential patents, however, the rights holders are required to provide licenses for their patents under FRAND terms in exchange for having their patents included in the standard. It seems to me like something similar should apply here: if the EU is effectively going to compel Netflix to license the rights to specific films, it's only fair that the rights holders to those films should be required to provide licenses under fair terms, lest they seek to take advantage of their propped up position.
Certainly so! I wouldn't disagree with any of that. My point was simply that because you're having to waste quite a bit of time between the moments where your continued presence proves beneficial, it would have been better had you been allowed to work on other things in the meantime, as you kept an ear out for something that required your input. I wasn't advocating for Option 1 to the exclusion of Option 2. I was simply pointing out that if we're going to waste people's time, at least allow them to make the best use of it.
The problem with meetings is how they manage to waste the time of anyone not actively participating as a speaker or listener at any given moment. There are only two ways I've seen to prevent that time from going to waste: 1) Ensure no one has downtime in a meeting by carefully choosing the topics that need to be discussed, only inviting people who need to hear or speak towards every single one of the topics being discussed, staying on topic, and keeping things short and to the point. Doing it this way is difficult, but it ensures that every minute of every meeting is useful time to everyone involved.
2) Redeem the inevitable downtime by establishing that it's acceptable practice for people to work on other things during that time. This means working from your laptop during in-person meetings, muting mics on conference calls, or excusing people from all-day meetings until the discussion swings back around to their topic again. Doing it this way is much simpler, but it doesn't work in all situations.
My role on our team dictates that I'm sucked into an all-day client meeting about once a month, but I generally only need to be there for a couple of hours. While it seems rude to work on something else, most of the clients I've worked with appreciate us making productive use of our time, even if that means doing something other than being engaged in the meeting we're in with them. And, frankly, most of our clients do it to us too, since I routinely see their guys handling other work during meetings. It's the only way to ensure that any downtime for a person doesn't become wasted time.
The summary makes it clear that they merely deleted the Facebook app, which is a far cry from deleting their Facebook account, which means they're still using the web interface.
That's like saying that they took back the key to their house that they given to their abusive ex-spouse, but they still let the ex-spouse in every night to have a "chat", which consists of the ex-spouse relaying every banal and horrible thing they heard in the last day while being repeatedly told to stop installing cameras and turning over any object that isn't nailed down.
When smartphones came along, we put up with the worse recharge times because the benefits were clear to us. But as a watch wearer, I’m hard-pressed to come up with a benefit of the current smart watches that would justify its cost or the need to recharge it on a nightly basis.
My current dumb watch (Timex? Casio? I couldn’t even tell you) cost me $40, has lasted for years on its original battery, syncs with the atomic clock every night so that I never need to worry about it’s accuracy, stays on my wrist when I swim or go in the shower or go to sleep or wherever, can have its time zone changed as I travel, and otherwise doesn’t try to be too clever for its own good, since I don’t care about the other features. It replaced my previous unit of the exact same model, which met an untimely end.
I find the Apple Watch interesting, but it doesn’t really do anything different for me unless I pair it with some Air Pods, at which point we’ve just added $200 more to the asking price. I don’t need to listen to podcasts when my phone isn’t handy that much, and I loathe the idea of products in categories that should be able to last for a decade or longer only lasting a few years on account of their batteries.
That's not at all what throttling means, which I suspect you already know full well and are intentionally misusing in an attempt to confuse the issue. To "throttle" is to "suppress" or to "reduce the speed of" or to "decrease the flow of". It's an imposition on something that is capable of more.
To use some car analogies, when I press a car's accelerator to the floor so that it can't go any faster, that isn't throttling. That's simply the fastest the car can go. Nothing more. When too many cars are on the road and we're forced to slow down, that isn't throttling. That's simply a bottleneck resulting from there being more traffic than the road can handle. Nothing more. When a Corolla loses to a Corvette in a drag race, that isn't throttling. That's simply different products performing to their different limits. Nothing more.
But when your car is capable of X and traffic conditions allow for X, yet you're intentionally using the accelerator to drive it at less than X, that's you throttling your car.
Likewise, when a site is serving content as fast as it can and can't go any faster, that isn't throttling. That's simply the fastest the site can go. Nothing more. When too much traffic hits a link along the route and the traffic can't be routed at full speed, that isn't throttling. That's simply a bottleneck resulting from there being more traffic than the link can handle. Nothing more. When a 50 Mbps plan is slower than a 1 Gbps plan in a speed test, that isn't throttling. That's simply different products performing to their different limits. Nothing more.
But when you and the site are capable of X and traffic conditions allow for X, yet an ISP is intentionally forwarding packets at less than X, that's the ISP throttling your connection.
All analogies break down at some point if you stretch them too far, so this is by no means an exhaustive list of the ways that ISPs may engage in throttling or other shady behavior (e.g. ISPs intentionally divert traffic for some sites to links that are constrained as a way to throttle those sites, which would be like a cop always diverting you back onto surface streets every time you tried to get on the highway; or ISPs may intentionally throttle certain types of traffic, which would be like manufacturers installing devices that limit your top speed based on the contents of your car when you started it), but they at least hit the high points.
Actually, while you're correct that Amazon certainly does sell real stuff with real value for a real profit, their valuation has largely been based on speculation of future greatness.
For years, they've had minimal profits because they've left money on the table in the interest of driving customer growth while spending what they did bring in on improvements to their infrastructure. Despite their minimal profits, people have kept investing in them on the continued promise that—at some point in the future—Amazon could flip the switch and start collecting those profits. It's my understanding that Amazon signaled their intent to finally flip the switch awhile back. They've eliminated enough of their competition and expanded into enough areas that they can slow down and rest on their laurels a bit.
And, sure enough, we've recently started to hear significantly more stories of their prices being less competitive, fewer items being available for free two-day shipping, and the screws getting turned on more and more of their suppliers. They're leaving less profit on the table, but the stock market hasn't really caught up yet to that new reality. While there is more growth yet to happen, the market seems to value Amazon on the assumption that their growth will continue at its meteoric pace, despite Amazon signaling to the contrary.
I think you underestimate the power of words. I'm not so worried about an Internet tough guy showing up at my address. I am more concerned, however, with an Internet tough guy saying the right few words to send a team of heavily armed officers crashing through my front door.
The only time anyone ever managed to really annoy me in my many years as an admin/moderator was when someone registered a handle that was visually identical to my own, then proceeded to make bomb threats against government buildings, seemingly in my name. I was able to ban the account and delete the offending content within a few minutes of it first appearing, and I know full well that I could have eventually explained the situation to everyone's satisfaction, but it's easy to imagine a scenario where an enforcement agency is tipped off to the "threat" and takes immediate action against me in response to what appears at first glance to be an immediate threat from me.
That's the sort of line-crossing that I don't like dealing with as much, and having a shotgun at the ready in that scenario would likely make things worse, not better.
Tell that to my RAM usage monitor. I finally had enough headaches with Chrome’s memory usage that I gave Firefox a fair shot for several weeks (I gave up due to a thousand small lacks of attention to detail), and now am giving Safari a fair shot for a few weeks. At this point, I plan to stay with Safari. Though it isn’t as full-featured, the current version feels snappier, uses less memory, and does enough of the stuff that I care about to have won me over from Chrome.
The endless debate isn't wasting as much time as we've already wasted on my work project, trying to answer the question of "if someone schedules a field test to happen every day, do they mean every 24 hours, or at the same time each day?" We've probably had a half dozen meetings so far to try dealing with timezone and Daylight Saving Time issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. They exaggerate access everywhere else (e.g. if, as self-reported by ISP X, anyone in the county has the option for broadband from ISP X, everyone in the county is regarded as having broadband access offered from ISP X according to the FCC’s current methodology, even if it’s just that one customer actually being offered broadband), so they’re simply being consistent here.
Actually not true.
Actually, it is. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
While it's true that the kill switch exists, it isn't what happens when Apple loses the license to content or a developer pulls their app under normal conditions, nor is it related in any way to what happened here or what we're talking about. The only times I'm aware of the kill switch being used are for malware apps, and even then, Apple has only ever used it sparingly.
Just to highlight how loathe Apple is to use the kill switch, I once purchased an app that—if the user entered a particular sequence of buttons—turned the phone into a WiFi hotspot without the need for any jailbreaking. This was back in the time when carriers didn't allow iPhones to be used that way. Apple yanked the app from the store within a few hours of the sequence going viral, but you know what they didn't do? Delete it from my devices or prevent me from using it in any way. I used that app for years, and then it went with me to the next phone, and the one after that, until it finally stopped working years and years later after an OS update dropped compatibility for apps that hadn't been updated.
So yes, while they can kill apps (to which I never suggested otherwise), they didn't do that here, so let's stay on topic.
I completely agree, but I also think this summary is being a bit unfair. Apple didn't reach into his hard drive to delete his local copies. They simply pulled the listing from their store, meaning that new downloads and streaming are no longer possible.
It's the same practice they've had across all their services for years. When a developer pulls an app from the app store, the app's users get to keep their local copies, can transfer them to new devices, and can otherwise use them without issue. Same thing for films. My wife had a dozen films she had purchased in iTunes before we got married, and they all still work fine (though these days I have her buying DRM-free so that we can get them into Plex more easily). I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Apple lost the rights to distribute some of her films, but we'd likely never know.
I was sitting out on a patio at a restaurant last week, with a college-aged guy doing some form of smoking at the table next to us. We had maple-bacon smoke wafting over us for the better part of 30 minutes as he blew big, billowing plumes for his own amusement.
Maple-bacon scented patios may sound like some people's idea of a pleasant evening, but as someone with asthma, it's not unusual for me to feel my airways closing up when I'm exposed to strong scents, which I've had happen before with e-cigs and vaporizers. Thankfully, nothing happened this time, so it was little more than a random thing that happened that evening, but I don't want to see a return to the way things were a few decades ago. People always talk about the big risks when it comes to this stuff—addiction, cancer, death—but we shouldn't forget that there's a significant decrease in the quality of life for others when being able to breathe easily is something they need to concern themselves with.
...and no one thought to point out that iPads have headphone jacks, making all of this moot? That quote about needing three adapters was based on what would happen if Apple were to remove the headphone jack from the iPad, but that’s not how things are now. But hey, you won’t get an outcry from that, let’s omit the preceding line from the quote so that we can take it out of context and stir up a tempest in a teacup.
What was actually said was:
But if the rumors are true that this year’s iPad Pros don’t have headphone jacks, this doesn’t make much sense at all. This would mean someone with a Mac, iPhone, and iPad would need three different headphone adapters.
The actual numbers can be much higher than 50%. Try more like 97%.
I'm just waiting for the day that Netflix or whoever institutes a "Comcast Customer Fee" for all customers of Comcast, with a nice information bubble explaining how Comcast is abusing access to its own customers to charge Netflix extra—despite having already been paid by those customers to retrieve the requested data and having already adopted peering agreements with Netflix's ISP to deliver the requested data—which has forced Netflix to institute a surcharge for Comcast's customers to make up the difference. Put the information in front of normal people, hit them in the wallet where it counts, and just wait to see how long Comcast can maintain that policy.
Ehh, who am I kidding? Given the lack of competition, they can probably maintain it indefinitely...
For anyone not up to date on xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2039/
It's about escalating privileges.
It's been quite awhile since the default behavior was to give apps unfettered access to the system, specifically because of malicious apps doing malicious things. These days, there are permissions that need to be requested for all sorts of actions, and if you try to request low level access, people tend to sit up, take notice, and start asking questions about what your app is doing and why it's doing it.
On the other hand, having permission to play sound and listen via the mic doesn't get you much, and as a result generally hasn't been worthy of significant scrutiny during app review or otherwise, at least so far as security goes (though mic access is obviously a privacy concern). But if you can leverage those simple permissions to unlock unrestricted access to the device? Now, that's something.
That's so odd. My copy of the summary says "at least 30%", which is pretty much the exact opposite of "up to 30%". You can find the copy I'm reading right at the top of this page. Any chance you could link to the copy of the summary you're reading where it says "up to 30%"? I'm having trouble finding it.
How is this supposed to work anyway? Say Netflix has 3000 films available for streaming today in a particular country. Replacing a third of them would mean needing to find 1000 local films, which would likely require scraping the bottom of the barrel in the case of countries that lack a film scene. That's already problematic enough as it is, but let's ignore it for the moment. More worrying is that in some of these countries, the film scene likely isn't large enough to warrant more than a handful of distributors for theatrically-released, domestic films. This law—at least as it's explained in the summary—would seat those distributors in a disproportionate and unfair position at the negotiating table, since they know that Netflix has no choice but to work with them. They're basically being given the tools to extort Netflix legally.
In many ways, this bears a striking similarity to another form of intellectual property: standards-essential patents that companies have no choice but to use if they want to build a product in that space. In the case of standards-essential patents, however, the rights holders are required to provide licenses for their patents under FRAND terms in exchange for having their patents included in the standard. It seems to me like something similar should apply here: if the EU is effectively going to compel Netflix to license the rights to specific films, it's only fair that the rights holders to those films should be required to provide licenses under fair terms, lest they seek to take advantage of their propped up position.
Came to see the responses to the Black Mirror comment. Slightly disappointed at their relative dearth, but thank you for doing your part.
Certainly so! I wouldn't disagree with any of that. My point was simply that because you're having to waste quite a bit of time between the moments where your continued presence proves beneficial, it would have been better had you been allowed to work on other things in the meantime, as you kept an ear out for something that required your input. I wasn't advocating for Option 1 to the exclusion of Option 2. I was simply pointing out that if we're going to waste people's time, at least allow them to make the best use of it.
The problem with meetings is how they manage to waste the time of anyone not actively participating as a speaker or listener at any given moment. There are only two ways I've seen to prevent that time from going to waste:
1) Ensure no one has downtime in a meeting by carefully choosing the topics that need to be discussed, only inviting people who need to hear or speak towards every single one of the topics being discussed, staying on topic, and keeping things short and to the point. Doing it this way is difficult, but it ensures that every minute of every meeting is useful time to everyone involved.
2) Redeem the inevitable downtime by establishing that it's acceptable practice for people to work on other things during that time. This means working from your laptop during in-person meetings, muting mics on conference calls, or excusing people from all-day meetings until the discussion swings back around to their topic again. Doing it this way is much simpler, but it doesn't work in all situations.
My role on our team dictates that I'm sucked into an all-day client meeting about once a month, but I generally only need to be there for a couple of hours. While it seems rude to work on something else, most of the clients I've worked with appreciate us making productive use of our time, even if that means doing something other than being engaged in the meeting we're in with them. And, frankly, most of our clients do it to us too, since I routinely see their guys handling other work during meetings. It's the only way to ensure that any downtime for a person doesn't become wasted time.
The summary makes it clear that they merely deleted the Facebook app, which is a far cry from deleting their Facebook account, which means they're still using the web interface.
That's like saying that they took back the key to their house that they given to their abusive ex-spouse, but they still let the ex-spouse in every night to have a "chat", which consists of the ex-spouse relaying every banal and horrible thing they heard in the last day while being repeatedly told to stop installing cameras and turning over any object that isn't nailed down.
When smartphones came along, we put up with the worse recharge times because the benefits were clear to us. But as a watch wearer, I’m hard-pressed to come up with a benefit of the current smart watches that would justify its cost or the need to recharge it on a nightly basis.
My current dumb watch (Timex? Casio? I couldn’t even tell you) cost me $40, has lasted for years on its original battery, syncs with the atomic clock every night so that I never need to worry about it’s accuracy, stays on my wrist when I swim or go in the shower or go to sleep or wherever, can have its time zone changed as I travel, and otherwise doesn’t try to be too clever for its own good, since I don’t care about the other features. It replaced my previous unit of the exact same model, which met an untimely end.
I find the Apple Watch interesting, but it doesn’t really do anything different for me unless I pair it with some Air Pods, at which point we’ve just added $200 more to the asking price. I don’t need to listen to podcasts when my phone isn’t handy that much, and I loathe the idea of products in categories that should be able to last for a decade or longer only lasting a few years on account of their batteries.
That's not at all what throttling means, which I suspect you already know full well and are intentionally misusing in an attempt to confuse the issue. To "throttle" is to "suppress" or to "reduce the speed of" or to "decrease the flow of". It's an imposition on something that is capable of more.
To use some car analogies, when I press a car's accelerator to the floor so that it can't go any faster, that isn't throttling. That's simply the fastest the car can go. Nothing more. When too many cars are on the road and we're forced to slow down, that isn't throttling. That's simply a bottleneck resulting from there being more traffic than the road can handle. Nothing more. When a Corolla loses to a Corvette in a drag race, that isn't throttling. That's simply different products performing to their different limits. Nothing more.
But when your car is capable of X and traffic conditions allow for X, yet you're intentionally using the accelerator to drive it at less than X, that's you throttling your car.
Likewise, when a site is serving content as fast as it can and can't go any faster, that isn't throttling. That's simply the fastest the site can go. Nothing more. When too much traffic hits a link along the route and the traffic can't be routed at full speed, that isn't throttling. That's simply a bottleneck resulting from there being more traffic than the link can handle. Nothing more. When a 50 Mbps plan is slower than a 1 Gbps plan in a speed test, that isn't throttling. That's simply different products performing to their different limits. Nothing more.
But when you and the site are capable of X and traffic conditions allow for X, yet an ISP is intentionally forwarding packets at less than X, that's the ISP throttling your connection.
All analogies break down at some point if you stretch them too far, so this is by no means an exhaustive list of the ways that ISPs may engage in throttling or other shady behavior (e.g. ISPs intentionally divert traffic for some sites to links that are constrained as a way to throttle those sites, which would be like a cop always diverting you back onto surface streets every time you tried to get on the highway; or ISPs may intentionally throttle certain types of traffic, which would be like manufacturers installing devices that limit your top speed based on the contents of your car when you started it), but they at least hit the high points.
Actually, while you're correct that Amazon certainly does sell real stuff with real value for a real profit, their valuation has largely been based on speculation of future greatness.
For years, they've had minimal profits because they've left money on the table in the interest of driving customer growth while spending what they did bring in on improvements to their infrastructure. Despite their minimal profits, people have kept investing in them on the continued promise that—at some point in the future—Amazon could flip the switch and start collecting those profits. It's my understanding that Amazon signaled their intent to finally flip the switch awhile back. They've eliminated enough of their competition and expanded into enough areas that they can slow down and rest on their laurels a bit.
And, sure enough, we've recently started to hear significantly more stories of their prices being less competitive, fewer items being available for free two-day shipping, and the screws getting turned on more and more of their suppliers. They're leaving less profit on the table, but the stock market hasn't really caught up yet to that new reality. While there is more growth yet to happen, the market seems to value Amazon on the assumption that their growth will continue at its meteoric pace, despite Amazon signaling to the contrary.
That actually got a chuckle from me, so, yes, I am. Thanks for the unexpected response!
I think you underestimate the power of words. I'm not so worried about an Internet tough guy showing up at my address. I am more concerned, however, with an Internet tough guy saying the right few words to send a team of heavily armed officers crashing through my front door.
The only time anyone ever managed to really annoy me in my many years as an admin/moderator was when someone registered a handle that was visually identical to my own, then proceeded to make bomb threats against government buildings, seemingly in my name. I was able to ban the account and delete the offending content within a few minutes of it first appearing, and I know full well that I could have eventually explained the situation to everyone's satisfaction, but it's easy to imagine a scenario where an enforcement agency is tipped off to the "threat" and takes immediate action against me in response to what appears at first glance to be an immediate threat from me.
That's the sort of line-crossing that I don't like dealing with as much, and having a shotgun at the ready in that scenario would likely make things worse, not better.
There's noting bloated about Chrome.
Tell that to my RAM usage monitor. I finally had enough headaches with Chrome’s memory usage that I gave Firefox a fair shot for several weeks (I gave up due to a thousand small lacks of attention to detail), and now am giving Safari a fair shot for a few weeks. At this point, I plan to stay with Safari. Though it isn’t as full-featured, the current version feels snappier, uses less memory, and does enough of the stuff that I care about to have won me over from Chrome.
I’m thinking that might be a bad idea. Or at least something that would need to be done carefully.
Including the next time Apple kills somebody with one.
While we’re on the topic of loaded phrasing with no basis in reality, when exactly did you decide to stop beating your wife?
That's who the meetings were with. Clients can't always make up their own minds. They just want it to work.
The endless debate isn't wasting as much time as we've already wasted on my work project, trying to answer the question of "if someone schedules a field test to happen every day, do they mean every 24 hours, or at the same time each day?" We've probably had a half dozen meetings so far to try dealing with timezone and Daylight Saving Time issues.