You realize, of course, that those aren't related in any way. There are many reasons you can't discriminate against someone, but many more reasons why you can. I can refuse to serve you because I don't like the shirt you're wearing or your cologne or your haircut (as long as those aren't proxies for your race, sex, or national origin).
But more importantly, there's an enormous legal gap between who you are and what you've done. It's not OK to kick you out of my restaurant because you're white. It's way OK to kick you out because you crapped on the floor and peed on another diner's cheeseburger.
The closest real-world analogy to your straw man is that you can't refuse to bake cakes for a Methodist. That's explicitly illegal. You can surely refuse to bake cakes for the specific Methodist who knocked up your sister. Now do you understand how this all works in reality-land?
Why do you oppose the rights of Silicon Valley organizations to not host content they find offensive? (As if it makes sense to talk about "Silicon Valley" as a monolithic entity, like Tinder and Tumblr are likely to have similar codes of ethics.)
A lot of us have moved to Mastodon, which is like Twitter but federated like email. You can host your own Mastodon instance (server) and set your own local policies. Then your users can talk to users on my instance, just like Outlook users can email people at Gmail.
But! I can set my own policies, too. If your users are causing problems for mine, I can completely disconnect from you and end the problem from my side. This is an excellent situation. Instances that are too tolerant of trolls find themselves disconnected from the network. Instances that are too thin-skinned and that server connections too quickly end up the same. Either way, their more mainstream users are likely to flee to more moderately administered instances, so there's a nice feedback loop that optimizes for common decency above other extremes.
I've got two separate Time Machines: a frequent stream to a local NAS that gets backed up to the Internets, and an external USB drive I update a couple of times a month.
But for real, High Sierra beta feels more solid than Sierra.whatever. I'm not a fanboy, but this is a good one.
It does work, at least as of the current version I'm using. I have junk mail filtering disabled so that I have to manually mark stuff as junk, but when I do, all those actions take place.
A few GB; I've never had the joy of ZFS on huge servers. That's a fair point about the SSD optimization, and maybe that's why they're not rolling it out to rust by default.
The junk stuff does seem to work again in High Sierra. I have rules set up to move things I mark to a specific folder and the forward it to my spam filter's training address.
Furthermore, that's happened for the last several macOS releases. I haven't had a non-beta GPG Suite from October to spring of any year in recent memory (and it's still in beta for Sierra).
Anecdote: I've been running the public beta for a while now and it's been great. APFS is noticeably faster on my aging (early-2011) MacBook Pro, and it's been at least as good as Sierra in every way. I think it's shaping up to be Snow Leopard 2.
Which totally doesn't negate your point: no one has to upgrade to the new OS release, especially on launch day. But if you were ever going to do such a thing, in my experience this seems like a good release to try it on.
And furthermore, you generally want that conversion unless you're doing something very tightly coupled to HFS+ specifically. APFS has been a nice speed boost on my laptop.
...as opposed to mashing your thumb against it, which is infinitely more secure. Yep.
As implemented, iOS requires your password every so often even if you use {Touch,Face} ID normally. It also requires it after a power cycle or reset. If police have your phone for longer than a day or so - I forget the exact interval - it won't open without your PIN. iOS 11 (dropping next week) has the extra feature that rapidly pressing the side button immediately puts the device into "require a password" mode. If you find yourself in a position where you're going to be talking to police soon, lock the thing. You don't even have to be looking at the screen to do it.
Why would you assume that they're using software written this decade? I think it's equally plausible that a good chunk of their components are from the mid 2000s and utterly riddled with security holes, but no PM will let the devs update anything because "if it works, leave it alone". Never mind that it doesn't actually work - that's someone else's problem, obviously.
It is apparent that Equifax couldn't give a flying fuck about security. I think it's ludicrous to debate whether the problem is with a bug revealed in March or September, when I think it's equally likely to be older than my kids.
Tech firms want people with the current skills sets and those "without those skills will be pressured to leave or see minimal career progression,"
Engineers who fell into the job because they're insanely curious and constantly looking for new things to learn because that's what they love to do will be just fine. As always. My mom was in her late 40s when they said "hey, you're the sysadmin for this new DEC thing we bought now. Here's the manual!", and she thrived at it because it was challenging and interesting.
Engineers who got compsci degrees because their parents pushed them into it because "it pays well" will continue to steer into management. As always. We all people like this who self-selected into PM roles ASAP, not because they particularly loved PMing but because the writing was on the wall.
(Note: you can absolutely be a top-notch first-definition engineer and manage, and you can be an in-it-for-the-money engineer who somehow makes it to retirement while writing code, but I contend those are outliers.)
LOL, I don't have root on here or anything. You can call me a dumbass with impunity. Many do!:-D
I could see how you'd read what I said as a criticism of Mac users, but that wasn't my intent. I only brought us into the mix because the person I was replying to started off with "do they expect Mac users to...", to which the answer is no, no they don't.
It doesn't. All of my most highly technical engineer friends use Macs (and I do too), so that wasn't meant as an insult to Macs or their users. Rather, I just meant that if you're doing stuff at the level of multibooting an OS, porting apps from one of the OSes to the other, and using the other OS's own drive for read/write, then you should be capable of (and expected to) figuring out how to make a VFAT partition or similar for data sharing.
No one's holding a gun at your head to make you upgrade. If you run software that isn't compatible with High Sierra, then don't upgrade to High Sierra. Sierra isn't going to quit working immediately.
Yes, it's absolutely terrible. If nothing else, it's dog slow at metadata operations. Consider how long it takes Finder to tell you how big a folder is. That's not a limitation of Finder, but of what hoops HFS+ has to jump through to fetch the information.
You're really moving the goalposts here. Yes, it's "no worse" in every technical way. There are some things it doesn't do better: it doesn't increase your flash drive's internal capacity. It doesn't conjure unicorns any better than HFS+ did. It doesn't mow your lawn. There are some things it does worse: conceivably there's some program somewhere that does
if(!strcmp(fsname, "HFS+"))
to detect whether it's running on a Mac, and that program will break.
Macs ship with Samba built in. I'm gonna go ahead and say yes, it can be read by Samba.
I bet Windows can read APFS about as well as Mac can read ReFS.
It will support some devices that HFS+ doesn't, and vice versa.
Look, it's different. By every technical metric, it meets or exceeds HFS+. Sure, there are scenarios where the simple fact that it's not HFS+ will cause problems because that's the only thing an application knows how to use, but there aren't going to be many of those and they'll be fixed over time.
That's not 100% true at this level. For instance, you used to be able to tell some hard drives to flush their cache and they'd immediately respond "OK, flushed!" even though they wouldn't actually write the data until later. If your filesystem design depends on the drive honoring its word, that could cause data corruption. Apple knows whether all of the hardware they've shipped does stuff like this and can account for it. They might not know that the sketch Joe's Hard Drives and Mattresses, Inc. device from Alibaba is a liar.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize, of course, that those aren't related in any way. There are many reasons you can't discriminate against someone, but many more reasons why you can. I can refuse to serve you because I don't like the shirt you're wearing or your cologne or your haircut (as long as those aren't proxies for your race, sex, or national origin).
But more importantly, there's an enormous legal gap between who you are and what you've done. It's not OK to kick you out of my restaurant because you're white. It's way OK to kick you out because you crapped on the floor and peed on another diner's cheeseburger.
The closest real-world analogy to your straw man is that you can't refuse to bake cakes for a Methodist. That's explicitly illegal. You can surely refuse to bake cakes for the specific Methodist who knocked up your sister. Now do you understand how this all works in reality-land?
Why do you oppose the rights of Silicon Valley organizations to not host content they find offensive? (As if it makes sense to talk about "Silicon Valley" as a monolithic entity, like Tinder and Tumblr are likely to have similar codes of ethics.)
A lot of us have moved to Mastodon, which is like Twitter but federated like email. You can host your own Mastodon instance (server) and set your own local policies. Then your users can talk to users on my instance, just like Outlook users can email people at Gmail.
But! I can set my own policies, too. If your users are causing problems for mine, I can completely disconnect from you and end the problem from my side. This is an excellent situation. Instances that are too tolerant of trolls find themselves disconnected from the network. Instances that are too thin-skinned and that server connections too quickly end up the same. Either way, their more mainstream users are likely to flee to more moderately administered instances, so there's a nice feedback loop that optimizes for common decency above other extremes.
I've got two separate Time Machines: a frequent stream to a local NAS that gets backed up to the Internets, and an external USB drive I update a couple of times a month.
But for real, High Sierra beta feels more solid than Sierra.whatever. I'm not a fanboy, but this is a good one.
It does work, at least as of the current version I'm using. I have junk mail filtering disabled so that I have to manually mark stuff as junk, but when I do, all those actions take place.
A few GB; I've never had the joy of ZFS on huge servers. That's a fair point about the SSD optimization, and maybe that's why they're not rolling it out to rust by default.
The junk stuff does seem to work again in High Sierra. I have rules set up to move things I mark to a specific folder and the forward it to my spam filter's training address.
Furthermore, that's happened for the last several macOS releases. I haven't had a non-beta GPG Suite from October to spring of any year in recent memory (and it's still in beta for Sierra).
Anecdotally, I never had much of problem with that on ZFS-on-rust. Do you suspect APFS will be different?
It's master is Apple. Therefore, it does what Apple wants.
...except, of course, making the decision to upgrade for you. If you want the version with the new shiny, go for it. If not, that's OK too.
Anecdote: I've been running the public beta for a while now and it's been great. APFS is noticeably faster on my aging (early-2011) MacBook Pro, and it's been at least as good as Sierra in every way. I think it's shaping up to be Snow Leopard 2.
Which totally doesn't negate your point: no one has to upgrade to the new OS release, especially on launch day. But if you were ever going to do such a thing, in my experience this seems like a good release to try it on.
And furthermore, you generally want that conversion unless you're doing something very tightly coupled to HFS+ specifically. APFS has been a nice speed boost on my laptop.
...as opposed to mashing your thumb against it, which is infinitely more secure. Yep.
As implemented, iOS requires your password every so often even if you use {Touch,Face} ID normally. It also requires it after a power cycle or reset. If police have your phone for longer than a day or so - I forget the exact interval - it won't open without your PIN. iOS 11 (dropping next week) has the extra feature that rapidly pressing the side button immediately puts the device into "require a password" mode. If you find yourself in a position where you're going to be talking to police soon, lock the thing. You don't even have to be looking at the screen to do it.
Why would you assume that they're using software written this decade? I think it's equally plausible that a good chunk of their components are from the mid 2000s and utterly riddled with security holes, but no PM will let the devs update anything because "if it works, leave it alone". Never mind that it doesn't actually work - that's someone else's problem, obviously.
It is apparent that Equifax couldn't give a flying fuck about security. I think it's ludicrous to debate whether the problem is with a bug revealed in March or September, when I think it's equally likely to be older than my kids.
Tech firms want people with the current skills sets and those "without those skills will be pressured to leave or see minimal career progression,"
Engineers who fell into the job because they're insanely curious and constantly looking for new things to learn because that's what they love to do will be just fine. As always. My mom was in her late 40s when they said "hey, you're the sysadmin for this new DEC thing we bought now. Here's the manual!", and she thrived at it because it was challenging and interesting.
Engineers who got compsci degrees because their parents pushed them into it because "it pays well" will continue to steer into management. As always. We all people like this who self-selected into PM roles ASAP, not because they particularly loved PMing but because the writing was on the wall.
(Note: you can absolutely be a top-notch first-definition engineer and manage, and you can be an in-it-for-the-money engineer who somehow makes it to retirement while writing code, but I contend those are outliers.)
LOL, I don't have root on here or anything. You can call me a dumbass with impunity. Many do! :-D
I could see how you'd read what I said as a criticism of Mac users, but that wasn't my intent. I only brought us into the mix because the person I was replying to started off with "do they expect Mac users to...", to which the answer is no, no they don't.
It doesn't. All of my most highly technical engineer friends use Macs (and I do too), so that wasn't meant as an insult to Macs or their users. Rather, I just meant that if you're doing stuff at the level of multibooting an OS, porting apps from one of the OSes to the other, and using the other OS's own drive for read/write, then you should be capable of (and expected to) figuring out how to make a VFAT partition or similar for data sharing.
It wouldn't have been less informative.
No one's holding a gun at your head to make you upgrade. If you run software that isn't compatible with High Sierra, then don't upgrade to High Sierra. Sierra isn't going to quit working immediately.
Yes, it's absolutely terrible. If nothing else, it's dog slow at metadata operations. Consider how long it takes Finder to tell you how big a folder is. That's not a limitation of Finder, but of what hoops HFS+ has to jump through to fetch the information.
Gotcha. That makes more sense to me now.
You're really moving the goalposts here. Yes, it's "no worse" in every technical way. There are some things it doesn't do better: it doesn't increase your flash drive's internal capacity. It doesn't conjure unicorns any better than HFS+ did. It doesn't mow your lawn. There are some things it does worse: conceivably there's some program somewhere that does
to detect whether it's running on a Mac, and that program will break.
Macs ship with Samba built in. I'm gonna go ahead and say yes, it can be read by Samba.
I bet Windows can read APFS about as well as Mac can read ReFS.
It will support some devices that HFS+ doesn't, and vice versa.
Look, it's different. By every technical metric, it meets or exceeds HFS+. Sure, there are scenarios where the simple fact that it's not HFS+ will cause problems because that's the only thing an application knows how to use, but there aren't going to be many of those and they'll be fixed over time.
That's not 100% true at this level. For instance, you used to be able to tell some hard drives to flush their cache and they'd immediately respond "OK, flushed!" even though they wouldn't actually write the data until later. If your filesystem design depends on the drive honoring its word, that could cause data corruption. Apple knows whether all of the hardware they've shipped does stuff like this and can account for it. They might not know that the sketch Joe's Hard Drives and Mattresses, Inc. device from Alibaba is a liar.
APFS, not AFP.
Since HFS+ didn't either, that's a moot point.