Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tstenner's commentslogin

Because gaming consoles are for a very specific purpose (and sold as such – the ruling against Sony for blocking Linux on the PS3 only happened because they advertised Linux compatibility) and Macs are general purpose computers

No Universal Machine inside any consumer product should "be for a very specific purpose," where it is locked down to prevent the consumer-owner from making software or firmware modifications to it. This goes for pacemakers, automobiles, microwave ovens, MRI machines, and even Intel IME or the little microcontroller on your NVME drive. If I were elected Benevolent Dictator For Life of the United States, I would immediately withdraw us from WIPO, strike down the DMCA, and implement a 100%+ sales tax on all "finished products" for sale which had even just one such Universal Machine in it locked down as described, AND mandate a minimum of 25 years full warranty and support on such products with forced 100% buy-back for failure to support or patch or open. We must relegate today's form of 'proprietary' to a rental/lease-only model and quit calling it 'ownership'.

We must demand hardware which strongly adheres to the GNU/FSF ethos or it must be rejected society-wide (or made too expensive for the average normie to afford, effectively killing its market). Universal Machines are to free humanity, not limit or enslave us! THIS is why I don't buy Apple and hold my nose buying x86 (Qubes OS) and Google Pixels (GrapheneOS); if I could afford Raptor Engineering's TALOS II, I would own only that!


And PS3 had Linux support because of EU taxes :)

Game consoles had a higher import tax than "computers" -> allow linux, save money.

IIRC they did a similar thing with the PS2 with some janky-ass BASIC interpreter being available.


Macs are special purpose hardware for running macOS. A PC you build from custom components in your office is a general purpose machine. The gaming console example by oc is quite apt.

Macs are specialized in running macOS and its app ecosystem and integrating with other Apple devices. Apple don't advertise Linux compatibility.

So what you're saying is it would be acceptable for Microsoft and PC manufacturers to lock down their hardware to running Windows only? Most ship with Windows so why not?

Yes? That's what the law currently allows. If we want to make a law that says companies are required to let end users install _any_ software they want onto any device they legally own, that encompasses almost the entire consumer product ecosystem. It is becomes hard to determine what is "general purpose" and what happens if Acer says "this machine runs windows specifically and isn't general purpose?" or they say "you no longer own this machine, you are licensing the hardware from us?"

It would not be acceptable, and it is the duty of ethical whitehat hackers to break such digital locks, flip the bird to Congress and the WIPO's DMCA, and free humanity. It would be ethical to form militias and raid federal prisons to free whitehat victims caught up by the state for it. Liberty is not free.

DMCA allows circumventing this kind of stuff for repair and interoperability.

As long as consumers understand that is the kind of device they are purchasing then it is acceptable.

It is cheaper for hardware manufacturers to only support a single operating system instead of designing a platform to be used by many. It also makes security simpler.


And having it actually tested


"It's not gambling when I can effect the outcome!"


Ironically enough, sports players, in the NBA for example are not allowed place bets on their games etc, but they can bet on polymarket I suppose given it's not considered gambling ?


Publicly traded stocks‘ reactions to a war are harder to predict and have way less leverage than a bet like "US will launch 527 missiles against Iran between 3 and 5 pm"


If the expense is tax deductable, it mostly doesn't matter whether you have $10 earnings vs $10 business expenses or $10K.


Good luck explaining that to the IRS.


The IRS would be fine worth it if taxable income is unchanged.

Businesses are taxed on their net income, not get gross.


You mean they are fine with the things they won’t notice? Perhaps that is true.


No, depending on your accounting method the transaction we're discussing may be disregarded, so the net economic position of the taxpayers is no different. As a result the IRS is generally indifferent...so long as you maintain that method of accounting for future similar transactions.


You can make this claim for any larger number by asserting a base rate of 1% without evidence.


Change the number how you want, even 0.1% is still millions of dollars. I'm not claiming the real number is 1% and I thought that should have been obvious.


At 0.1% (which still seems high) you lose out on the entrance fee but still get paid for food, drinks, memorabilia etc. Compare that to the cost for the system and the negative publicity and I'm not sure it's worth it (unless they have another motive they don't want to admit)


You’re allowed to bring in snacks to Disney parks. Pretty much any food that doesn’t need refrigeration is okay to bring. Water is free. You can absolutely ride rides and spend nothing and consume the lines of paying customers.

I imagine if you’re willing to try to get in for free or share your pass among multiple people against park rules you’re the kind of person motivated to avoid spending money.

Also, someone who makes the company money and is breaking rules is still not worth keeping as a customer. If someone spends $1000 at the Mickey Mouse gift they don’t get a pass to break other rules of the grounds just because they were profitable.


I asked the ASML rep at KubeCon who they were there for as nobody I knew had a quarter billion to spare. He told me they were just interested customers, but if I didn't want the newest machine I could get one for 70 million euros.


It's hard to qualify Zeiss as a "small business". Also, they pay their own employees wages and deduct taxes and social insurance so it's not like they pretend to be an independent contractor to save some money.


In the benchmark Rust is more than 50% faster than the runner up


Correct. Order-of-magnitude-wise, it's roughly the same as the alternatives.

In the context of writing a new service for a new company, you should not spend one second thinking about whether your technical choices will allow you to serve 100,000 requests per second, or 150,000 requests per second. If you are, you are focusing on the wrong thing. If you get to 1,000 requests per second with a real paying client base you already achieved more than most dream of.

On the other hand, if you are optimizing a mature distributed low-latency equity trading system that is consuming ten's of thousands of market data ticks per second, a 50% improvement in performance on a 20 machine cluster might turn into some real $$$ savings. But that's not what this article is about.


Stores are required by law to provide the price per unit/weight/volume alongside the price, so you can directly compare the price of a pint of beer to the 0.33 liter bottle without calculating anything.


Ah thanks, didn't think about that.

I just checked and REWE only lets you sort by absolute price. But honestly, you can compare prices so much better on their website than in a physical supermarket already [0].

[0] https://www.rewe.de/shop/c/frisches-obst/?sorting=PRICE_DESC You have to enter a random zip code eg 20249


there is this "400g (1 kg = 3,48 €)" - would be pretty easy to sort results by that I'd guess, good idea!


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: