Keep your money and instead ask to work from home. I actually convinced my boss to let me work from home 3 days a week, and this was before COVID. After COVID, they are of course even more open to the idea.

If your job is anything like mine (and I think most peoples) you'll notice that you don't really work 8 hours a day. I only really work, work probably 3-5 hours a day. With no commute and no boss breathing down my neck, that's a lot more "me time". I can get the kids on and off the bus, can take little breaks when I want, and could even grab a 20 minute nap if I wanted (although I rarely take it that far).

I tell ya, after 3 days working from home, those 2 days in the office really don't matter much. It's been a complete game changer.

I've been away awhile, do they really think that here? That's cute.

If you trade the forex markets, you'll notice that GBP actually isn't dropping at all, like many assumed it would. Why? Well this is where reality butts heads with propaganda.

The propaganda is that the UK needs the EU for free trade and movement of people. The reality is that such an agreement is so mutually beneficial to both sides that they'd be insane not to do it, so it's getting done anyways. And with the only supposed "benefit" of being in the EU remaining, all they have removed is the bad stuff - like the insane bureaucratic decrees and shameless moralizing that the EU has grown accustomed to.

This might be somewhat pronounced in my industry (IT) but one thing COVID has taught me is that I probably only really work like 3 hours a day. My wife is an Executive Assistant and noticed a similar pattern. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that the average person probably only is productive 60% of the time or less. Given that, ya, a 4 day work week seems doable.

Not sure how this one's going to do. If I'm paying 2 grand for a phone (and I'm not) it had better be the greatest product I've ever purchased in my life, yet I keep seeing all these reviews where the hinge gets easily worn and even half the screen stops working.

A play on Clinton's famous phrase of course, not actually calling you stupid, but the only problem with Linux Desktop has been the only problem with Linux Desktop for decades: programs. People don't care about operating systems, they care about programs.

So how do you get developers to develop for Linux? That's the million dollar question. The Linux community has always assumed that the mountain has to come to Mohammed, as it were, when really the opposite is true. Focusing more work on Linux compatibility with Windows has always been the answer.

Not sure why everyone's being so dismissive. You could easily do this, quickly, with distributed VPN. Kind of like Tor but with centralized authentication and controlled exit nodes. Wouldn't be difficult at all and it certainly has a use case.

Again.

Im not against walling users off in principle, im against lack of choice and control as a design philosophy. A knowledgeable user, and regular user alike have very limited choice and control on an iphone unless they jail break it, which violates the eula, warranty, and requires you to run out of date software.

Its pretty clear you just dont get it. Im welcome to make a web app? Gee, thanks. Plenty of languages? What exactly? Im seriously asking, because im not familiar with any intermediate runtimes, like java, working on ios. The only cross platform languages ios can boast are third party ones like unity that do the work for them building into their proprietary stack. Android competition to apple is also not in the slightest what im talking about. I might just end this conversation here as Im clearly not getting through. Im talking about fundamental design principles that favor open standards, user control, user flexibility, etc. None of this excludes usability, security, ease of use, user friendliness, or any other excuse you can dream up. And what we have now certainly isnt good enough.

Again, I have to say youre kind of missing the point. Let me reiterate the sumation of my argument.

This requirement doesnt exclude a central authority or repository from vetting software, it just cant be absolute. In fact, the gnu/linux folks do this with package repositories. The difference between, say, rhel and ios is that rhel gives you administrative control to make choices, if you so desire. I have a centos7 machine at home. I can allow my wife and kids to run software updates, and install software from the official repos without giving them super user, allowing them to directly install outside packages, etc. But meanwhile, as an administrator, I can change software repositories, install non-approved packages, and ultimately have complete control over the hardware I own. A live-in sysadmin isnt required to maintain this. Once the system is set up they operate autonomously. The important aspect is that control, customization, and competition is integral to the design of the software.

Android was a good example of a platform that used to do thing quite well. Originally they were bad at keeping malware off their store, but thats more of an administrative problem. The design of the software is what im talking about. It allows for side-loading apks, third party stores, and running applications compiled for android on any system that incorporates a dalvik runtime. This is why blackberry can run android apps today. Google has tried to shift from this approach by bundling a lot of new functionality into their proprietary play services, which is only available with full Google Android branding. A sad shift in philosophy no doubt inspired by peoples apathy towards open standards.

iOS, of course, is an example of the absolute worst offender. Apps are developed using strict apple only languages and technologies, sold and installable through their store only with no exception, and heavily scrutinized with many more considerations than just filtering malware.

Ecosystem is actually a great word for computing platforms, because they work like cities. They have rules and guidlelines which form communities around them. Technical people are like the economists of cities. If theres anything economists have learned about communities its that competition and liberty are absolute requirements for a healthy one. The way Apple designs their software completely destroys the competition incentive at the platform level. It is a poisonous, ultimately doomed philosophy for software design that shouldnt be supported by those that are supposed to know better. These decisions have real measurable consequences for future generations.

This is a complete false dilemma. You either have open, decentralized systems, or systems that are "idiot proof" and easy to use? Why cant you have both? You miss the point of the argument. The argument is simply that open decentralized standards are paramount to a healthy personal computing environment. This does not exclude user-friendliness. Its not up to my grandma to ensure this, its up to the people who make a living in the industry - like you and I. So when the IT community ralies behind these walled gardens it forms a market in a way that preserves them as the appropriate way to do business - and everyone else falls in line. You have to have noticed this trend in the industry. Look at the difference between Windows XP and 10. Android 2.0 and Android 7.0. Theres a disturbing trend favoring closed ecosystems that is no way required for usability. Its required for maximum profits. The only other requirement is that the consumer swallows the hook, which they are doing willingly.

I described what the sad thing was in the rest of the sentence:

Apple has been so successful with their we-know-whats-best-for-you philosophy to personal computing that it has become the norm. My sons will grow up in a world that is hostile to tinkering with their personal devices, hacking them, and customizing software. My sons will grow up with a choice between iPhones and Galaxy phones, MacBooks and Surfaces, and the App Store and the Play Store - all tightly controlled, tightly integrated with the respective manufacturers "cloud" ecosystem, and entirely closed. You may not find moral issue with this, but I would argue you're just not thinking broadly. There is a heavy price to pay for the way the industry has moved into closed controlled ecosystems. This is very sad and unfortunate for future generations.

Your iTrophy is in the mail. Dont worry, its all white, completely smooth, with no sharp edges.

A clue that the status quo is always correct? You have my permission to take me out to pasture if I ever become this dull and complacent. Now, if only your parents, and that of your ilk, would have given society the same mercy, we wouldnt be in this mess. This sentiment can be applied to much more than just personal computing.

I came in to say this but you beat me to it.

So the answer is to pass some law forcing Apple to be the company you want them to be? The way this generation handles things is so sad. The only Apple product I've ever owned in my life was an ipod nano in in early 2000s given to me as a gift. That was all I needed to understand what type of company they are, and I've stayed away from their products since (both in the office where I make office-wide purchasing decisions, and at home). The sad part is, very few people agree with me and Apple has become so successful they now lead the way for all other tech companies to adopt the same behavior. Increasingly the choice is coming down to throwing caution to the wind, or becoming a luddite. Im leaning towards the latter.

What planet do you live on? "Techies" haven't used critical thought to form what they want out of the industry for at least a decade. This Apple generation cares not for freedom, design standards, competition, or long term health of the industry. It cares only for fashion accessories and emoticons.

Blackberry is still superior for actually getting anything done (as opposed to playing). It wouldn't surprise me if they supported TPP too though.

- Sent from my BlackBerry Classic, using a real keyboard.