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

Would someone smarter than me mind explaining why FF on iOS can't use extensions? I know every browser has to use WebKit but I've heard Orion is able to use FF and Chrome extensions.

Apple doesn’t allow other apps to use Safari extensions (edit: on iOS or iPadOS) Orion offers custom support for WebExtensions but it’s basically requiring them to manually check and port WebExtensions to work well with WebKit, one by one. Check out: https://help.kagi.com/orion/browser-extensions/macos-extensi... https://help.kagi.com/orion/browser-extensions/ios-ipados-ex...

> I think the worst thing that happened to him was AI skepticism becoming a political position.

It is a political issue in the sense that the discussion around AI can't avoid material and cultural issues. Ed Zitron definitely has an ax to grind and I'm personally turned off by his hyperbole, but I don't think something being a political issue means it's not worth discussing. I've also noticed the pro-AI crowd pivot to accusing people of not having actual reasons for hating AI, being victims of Chinese propaganda, etc as a way to avoid actually talking about specific issues that people have about AI and DCs.


> It is a political issue in the sense that the discussion around AI can't avoid material and cultural issues.

I'm not even sure it's political. I think it might be a religion now. He doesn't think that AI is bad, he believes that AI is bad.


It’s too late to worry about political repercussions everything‘s political at this point in time…

I never said it's not worth discussing, I'm just saying that it becoming a charged issue was bad for Zitron specifically because his style of content fell in demand with the most irrational parts of the crowd.

My girlfriend worked in IT and people would frequently complain that Microsoft was down whenever something went wrong.

The only people who say this are people who don't actually know anyone who is antifascist. Hell, most of the people I've met who strait up identify as antifa are probably closer to democratic socialist than communist and they tend to be pretty dweeby.

If a business can't pay it's employees enough to live on it shouldn't survive.

This suggests that a person below this threshold would be entirely dependent on a social safety net (family, government, charity), instead of having a job with a partial dependency.

I see this parroted a lot, but it's more of a moral assertion that is completely ignorant of how economics works. This claim is easily debunked in a microeconomics 101 class. A business that can’t pay an arbitrary “living wage” disappearing doesn’t guarantee its workers get better jobs. In fact, it's often quite the opposite (less hours, automation, etc.). Not everyone's circumstances are the same, and not every job need to pay some arbitrary amount per hour.

How does this statement relate to my comment?

You've now posted this same comment multiple times within this same thread. It's becoming apparent that comprehension is a you problem.

Then it should be pretty easy to explain right?

I’ve seen the same reply to my comment multiple times. Each time it has nothing to do with what I said. I made no claim regarding businesses surviving or not surviving. Why do people keep replying the same thing?


Maybe look to the economic hell hole of Australia that's had a minimum wage linked to living standards for 120 year now.

If a business isn't structured to pay external staff the minimum hourly wage in exchange for what they are expected to do in an hour, that's tough.

If people are unable to genuinely find a job in exchange for what they can do by their best efforts in an hour then they can apply for assistance.


If everyone else seems like an asshole, it's time for self reflection.

Clearly it’s not everyone else. You can see multiple replies to my comment expressing the same frustration that I am.

You could just tell us

The smart reason graphing calculators are banned is because students are meant to be learning a concept. You don't learn how to graph to pass a test you take a test so you're pressured to learn how to graph.

Same with AI. Having AI generate a for loop doesn't mean you understand the concept of a for loop. You can argue that it's a waste of time to learn about for loops because an AI can write one for you but that's a separate matter.


That's why we use different tools when teaching/learning something vs. doing real work.

Another example is computer algebra systems like Mathematica. It would be self-sabotage to use them on your calculus homework, but they're indispensable to the working mathematician, physicist, or engineer, whose time is wasted doing routine calculations by hand.


> Almost all decisions that businesses take have nothing to do with the proficiencies of technologies or engineering finesse, or even the best options, but mostly on “incentives” and who can take/own the “blame.”

This argument always confuses me because it seems like lower level employees are the ones that get quickly dismissed when things get bad while a lot of C level executives seem to have some sort of compensation even if they fuck up.


- A developer continues to get paid if they accidentally write a bug that needs to be fixed, even if if it costs the business money to fix it.

- A CxO continues to get paid if they accidentally make a bad business decision that needs to be fixed, even if it costs the business money to fix it.

If you want a model where employees have to give up compensation for their mistakes, it would affect low ranking employees far more harshly than it would affect executives.


Is this a bit? This whole article is one emotional rant with a bunch of claims that don't follow.


Don't worry it'll be flagged soon.


Labour pivoted way to the right on immigration and it didn't get them any more votes. There's nothing they can do to get that part of the electorate and it's a waste of time to try to cater to them.


Hmm, their manifesto said "A fair and properly managed immigration system"... That's the absolute minimum lip service and a platitude, not any sort of pivot, which they cannot do considering the various power groups within the party.

Since then it's really only foreign students who have had issues, so the group that probably makes the least sense to 'hit' (although there was abuse of the system that needed to be addressed)but the easiest politically, again because it's the least resistance path within party and party supports while allowing to say that they are acting.


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

Search: