Google, despite their faults and believe me they're are plenty of them, is at least honest about what the purpose of it is, and when they deny an app they aren't known to sit on it for weeks or even months at a time and be deliberately vague about the reasoning leaving the developer guessing what the problem is, unlike apple.

If it was their own malware, why would they reveal it?

From the start you even made it clear that the purpose of it was to waste my time, so why would I bother? Showing your numbers and assumptions for this shouldn't take anywhere near that amount of text unless you're a complete moron. So it's either that or you didn't even answer my question at all.

Bottom line: it's a dumb idea, so just acknowledge that and stop trying to weasel your way out of it.

Sure, after they were aware of it. Though the entire justification apple provides for the walled garden is protection from malware. So how do you get 129 million malware installs? Why didn't the review process, which again apple justifies to the public for the purpose of preventing malware (which I don't buy at all, by the way) nip this in the bud? Why did somebody at alibaba, who doesn't have anywhere near the ability to vet apps as apple does, find it before apple did?

I don't recall the exact wording, but he was making comments about how the app store protects from malware, the usual bullshit, followed by parroting even more bullshit claims about android malware, and finally and he's not satisfied with the malware situation on macos.

Weellllll....so the "value" provided by the app store is that apple has to review and approve every app before you're allowed to even download and run it right? And they did this about 4,000 times, not counting updates that they also *ahem* carefully checked.

Though if you ask me, I think the purpose of the walled garden isn't about protecting the users or anything like that, it's about preventing anybody from using apps that might in any way hurt Apple's bottom line, including from potential competitors. And by that I mean throughout their history they've banned many apps they felt were more dangerous to their business model than anything else, like when they banned ad blockers (sure, they aren't anymore, but only after they finally gave up on iAd) and the first wireless itunes sync app, google voice, xbox cloud games, etc.

If it was really about protecting the users from malware, then nobody would have ever been able to pull off xcodeghost because they would have been pretty vigilant about it. But they weren't so somebody from alibaba, who has far less access to the internals or the ability to vet apps in any way at all, found it before they did.

Sure, you can chalk this up to a conspiracy theory on my part if that makes you happy, but come on...129 million installs....no matter how you slice it, it takes a pretty big fucking lapse in security to allow that to happen at all.

Says the guy who does dumb shit like use student loans to invest in the stock market. Seriously, it's a stupid idea.

Nope. Too long, not even going to read it.

And what work do you do? I mean shit, you're so lazy you couldn't even take twenty seconds to read the very law you cited.

You know why I came off as an expert to you on these loans? Because I did exactly what you either won't, or most likely, simply can't do because, as we've already established, your reading comprehension is less than dog shit.

Who's "we"? I only first heard it after Tim Cook made a point of it during the epic trial. And I don't really know the time span of macos versions. Was that before or after Apple approved xcode-ghost?

All it takes is two things: Common sense and a quick google search to affirm or refute the former. You don't need to be an expert to do that, yet obviously that flew right past you. Not my fault you don't have any. Again, cry me a river.

Nice try, but no. Give me actual numbers and assumptions you're making.

Actually better yet, spare me your guesswork: This is just a straight up dumb idea to begin with for all sorts of reasons. Can you come out on top? Maybe. Are you guaranteed to quadruple your investment over 30 years? Fuck no you're not, yet you speak as if it's a sure thing anyways. There are a lot of ways this can go south, some of which I guarantee you haven't even considered. For one, I always carry a rainy day reserve, which camps in a 2.5 APY account. Your dumb advice would have me toss this out the window under the same reasoning. Your ideology always bitches about how so many people are one car breakdown away from financial ruin. Now watch what happens when this coincides with a recession. I can say that, at least for those around you, the reason why this happens is because they listen to your stupid advice. Again, because it's not obvious to you, this isn't anti-poor, it's anti-stupid. You're poor because you're stupid, not the other way around.

Beyond that, there are only two highly liquid investments I generally keep around: My RSUs, and my roth 401k. Both have given more than adequate returns (especially the RSUs) and in the case of the 401k, those returns are tax advantaged, which is especially useful given California doesn't even have a concept of capital gains. Certainly way better than a student loan that you have to keep paying on. All it takes is one badly timed recession to turn your student loan investment idea to shit, because guess what? You still have to pay it off no matter what the economy does, or worse, don't and let the interest keep building up. No fucking thanks.

How does this help your cause?

Never took any. I take it you did, yet obviously I have a better understanding of all of this than you do anyways.

That's nice and all, but these loans are subsidized. Oh and as for your "invest your student loan money" idea, it actually turns out that the government will charge you back interest if you break the terms of your promissory note by doing this, effectively yanking that subsidy from underneath you. That adds even more to the risk profile of an already dumb idea. There's smart risks, and there's dumb risks.

How long did it take you to figure that out? Let me guess, half an hour? I mean shit, I even explicitly said that immediately before the bit you selectively quoted, and yet it still took a while for you to connect the dots. Oh wait -- don't tell me -- you somehow implicitly got the word "law" out of "codified", even after I said otherwise, right? That's yet more reading comprehension fail on your part.

And look at how far you've gone over just that one flippant metaphor. Its like you've defined your life around it by now. I've even explained what is meant by it and yet it's still branded under your eyelids so you're even stuck seeing it even in your sleep and just can't get it out of your mind.

You'll need to be more specific. (And you're really outgunned here...)

Cheese...and you said I'm smug. And you gotta love how you, a guy who recommends investing student loan money on something other than education expenses and even talks about it as if it's a sure bet, calls himself better informed and better educated. But I have to ask: Than who, exactly? I mean shit, at this point I think even Donald Trump would offer better investment advice than you. Wait -- don't tell me -- you attended one of his seminars didn't you? And that's where you're getting all of these dumb ideas from? In a rather twisted way, that would be the first thing out of you that actually made any sense.

The firmware and middleware was created on the ipad, then made its way to macos. Not the other way around.

Apple really wouldn't like that. In fact, during litigation in recent years they've only ever made a case for why they believe it should be exactly the opposite. Right now they're working to convince you that you don't need to install unapproved applications on your mac. When, not if, they succeed in that, there won't be a macos.

Over time as macbooks end up being more like ipads both in terms of hardware and OS, it won't make a difference anyways. It's already fairly close to being a simple matter of banning anything that didn't come from the app store. Shit, even the first and second stage bootloaders are already virtually identical between the two, and several OS middleware applications are as well.

Really depends. Google has in fact gotten really bad, though on occasion its very broad index will yield stuff the others won't. I default to ddg mainly because Google is hostile to VPN users.

Sounds like you answered your own question.

Why? You're basically proposing closing down customer facing government offices that can be adequately replaced with a website. E.g. some people can visit the library instead of the unemployment office, and the rest that needed it can do it from home. If anything, that would likely require fewer government offices overall.

No, they're not.
- Roads are just roads. Besides, where I live (California) the government obviously doesn't think people have a right to them or else they'd actually maintain them.
- What happens if you don't pay your water bill?
- What happens if you don't pay your electricity bill? And if electricity is an inalienable right, then are the devices that use them inalienable as well? If not, then what's the point? Do you have the right to refrigerator with icemaker and water dispenser as well as a microwave oven?

I think you misunderstand the meaning of what an inalienable right is. Who says you have to live in a city in order to live? I know some people who outright refuse to. Besides, if internet connectivity is an inalienable right, then presumably having a computer and all equipment necessary to access it with would be as well. In which case, what are the inalienable specifications that you have a right to? At least a 2ghz dual core CPU with 8GB of ram, 128GB of nvram, an OLED display, and a copy of Chrome preinstalled with guaranteed updates for life?

At some point I have to ask: If a mouse is perfectly capable of foraging, then why give him a cookie to begin with?

How so?

And guess what? The text and the intent are exactly what I'm saying they are. But this is going out of bounds: As I already said, your argument is completely moot to begin with. These are meant for the institution, NOT the student as you obviously lead yourself to believe. There are actually more specific stipulations on what the recipient can use the loan money for, but they're not codified into law, instead they're codified into the promissory note that the student must sign, specifically enumerated as "authorized" or "approved" expenses. Here's an example of one:

https://studentaid.gov/sites/d...

Did you notice anything absent from that?

Tell me, where do you see any mention of borrowing in it? Spoiler: It doesn't say that anywhere. The only mention of anything to do with lending is that the institution has to take into account for fees related to the loan itself.

Who is "they"?

Many of these loans are below the rate of inflation, meaning that's actually money lost. Or worse, these are private loans where the government has to pay back the interest as well.

If it was paid to me and then taken from me, it was mine to begin with.

Show me the math here: What assumptions are you making? By the way, did I mention that the promissory note would inevitably preclude this kind of usage, and if the lender finds out you violated the terms of it, they can raise the crap out of your interest rate? For somebody who claims to know about finances like you do, that's a sizable gap you conveniently left out.

Generally I tend to be pretty unassuming, but when I'm dealing with somebody who obviously is, then all bets are off. You started a knife fight and cowered away once you got cut, so now you whine about it and post anonymously. Cry me a river.

Here's exactly what you cited:

https://uscode.house.gov/view....

Note the heading:

"1087ll. Cost of attendance"

Note the part you're calling attention to:

"For the purpose of this subchapter, the term "cost of attendance" means- ...

(2) an allowance for books, supplies, transportation, and miscellaneous personal expenses, including a reasonable allowance for the documented rental or purchase of a personal computer, for a student attending the institution on at least a half-time basis, as determined by the institution;"

Most people don't need to be a lawyer to understand the intent of the law here. But you're obviously not like most people.

Big reading comprehension fail on your part. I mean shit, you even quoted this: "drunk parties on weekends on the taxpayer's dime" In other words, as long as I'm not paying for it in my taxes, I couldn't care less that you obviously spent it all on crack instead of getting an education. Just take responsibility for your actions once in your life and pay it back. Is that so bad?

I'm only going to address this once, right here:

1) It's of tangential relevance at best
2) I keep my engagement with babbling morons to a minimum
3) In the grand scheme of things, any money gained from it would be trivial at best and not worth it