You can't realistically do iOS development without knowing Objective-C; its just no feasible since all Apples frameworks are written in it, all the open source libraries use it, and all of the stackflow answers are for it.

This isn't the case. It doesn't matter whether a framework is written in Objective-C or Swift, you can use it from either language regardless. You can write an application from start to finish in Swift without needing to know anything about Objective-C. Sure, if you do know it, then it may be easier, but not so much easier that it will outweigh trying to learn two languages at once.

you should get some formal computer science instruction if you ever expect to land a job. You have to have something on your rÃf©sumÃf©.

No, when people hire iOS developers, the first question they ask is if you have any applications in the App Store, then they want to know where you've worked, then they want to see your code, and if you haven't got anything else, then a degree is the last resort you have. Spending your time building applications and putting them on the App Store is far more effective for getting a job than spending that time getting formal education in computer science. Even when you come across the rare organisation that demands a degree, they usually don't care about what subject it was in.

As far as I can tell, Swift is just a new front-end to the Objective-C object system.

No, that's not true. Swift interoperates with Objective-C, but it's not any kind of front-end to it, it works perfectly fine by itself.

most of the libraries and frameworks you will be working with are Objective-C

Most of the libraries and frameworks you will be working with are system components where you don't see the source code. Whether they are implemented in Objective-C or Swift is an implementation detail you don't need to care about.

That doesn't sound like this situation at all.

Apple loaned GT more than half a billion dollars to build the plant. When GT failed to deliver, Apple stopped giving them money. When GT ran into financial difficulties, Apple offered to give them more money and defer repayments to keep them afloat.

What did you expect Apple to do? Just keep on giving them more money indefinitely without getting anything in return?

Assume for a second, that you have a pond. And a new type of algae has been introduced into the pond. Algae grows quickly, so let's assume a doubling time of a day. 24 hours. The concern is that this new algae is gross and smells bad and nobody wants to have a pond full of this disgusting algae. Unfortunately, treating the algae is expensive and nobody wants to treat the entire pond.

The question is: One week before the pond is entirely covered in algae, would enough have appeared that you would even notice? At a "gut instinct" level, we'd guess that perhaps a quarter or a third or at least a tenth of the pond would be covered in algae, but that gut level instinct would be completely wrong. Just 1.56% of the pond would be covered - right about the point where it becomes noticeable at all.

The point is this: information processing capabilities, globally, aren't just growing exponentially: the rate of growth is itself also growing exponentially. Just about exactly at the time where we notice actual, verifiable intelligence of any kind is just about exactly the time where we have to assume it's ubiquity.

Previous discussions talk about the number of cross connects and how far away we are from the mark without commenting that the Internet itself allows for an infinite number of cross connects - my laptop can connect directly to billions of resources immediately with an average 10-25ms delay. Now, it's very likely that what is meant by "cross connects" in the context of AI is substantially different than the "cross connect" capability that global networking enables, but it's equally true that people generally fail at understanding exponential growth. It's why 401ks are so universally underutilized, why credit cards are such big business, and why the concept of the "singularity" seems like such hocus pocus at the gut level.

See, anybody who has a CS degree will be motivated to HATE boot camp guys. Employers who want more (cheaper) labor will be motivated to LOVE any force that lets them hire more people at less cost.

As a self-taught programmer myself managing a 10+ year project that's highly profitable, you'll probably guess which side of that divide you'll tend to see me on.

They have to be smart enough to jailbreak, point to an alternative app store, and install a corrupted app.

No, this is unnecessary. The malicious applications are signed as an enterprise application, so no jailbreaking is necessary. They are distributed using Apple's standard OTA distribution mechanism designed for enterprise applications and beta testing, so no alternative App Store is necessary.

What happens is that the user goes to a malicious/compromised website, this redirects them to the application, and iOS prompts the user with something like:

malicious-website.com would like to install "Gmail"

Cancel | Install

If I remember correctly, there's an additional prompt if it's the first time you've installed an application from that particular developer.

You still have to be dumb to install an application when you are unexpectedly prompted to, but it's a lot simpler to do than you realise.

Your later comments about ignoring RAID controller warnings for a *year* strike me as callous. But we all have our standards, and standards vary greatly from place to place as the needs the drive the standards also vary greatly. (financial institutions care much more about transactional correctness than reddit)

After months of testing, our organization has wholeheartedly adopted ZFS and have been finding that not only is it technically far superior to other storage technologies, it's significantly faster in many contexts, it's actually more stable than even EXT4 under continuous heavy read/write loads, and brings capabilities to the table that even expensive, hardware RAID controllers have a tough time matching. Best of all, since it actually runs off JBOD, the cost is somewhere between insignificant and irrelevant.

I was wondering if you had investigated ZFS at all, and if so, why you aren't using it?

Large scale internal combustion engines are extremely efficient and can run on just about anything burnable: vegetable oil, powdered coal, agricultural dust, wood gas from trees, dried leaves, etc. Yes, you can literally run an engine on banana peels. The trick is to get the carburetor to get the balance right.

From the perspective of a generator for a hospital, it would be relatively straightforward to design a generator running an engine like this with whatever renewable fuel is most convenient and readily available locally. Large scale wood gas installations typically work with fuel pre-processed into pellets.

You make it sound like it was paradise in the 80s. It had it's suckiness, just like we do today.

1) There was constant threats of terrorism in the media in the 80s. Take a look at the "Libyans" in "Back to the Future".

2) Helicopter parents were definitely a thing in the 80s.

3) There were plenty of poor example adults in the 80s.

4) I'll 100% grant that entry level jobs are *much* harder to find now.

5) NSA and FBI watched us in the 80s. Ma Bell logged every call ever made. What was that you were saying on the CB Radio, back when the FCC actually gave a damn?

6) Granted Massive student debt, partially offset by the relative ease of getting into school. Yes, debt is a problem, especially when you pick a lame degree. It was always a problem, more so now.

7) There was no "online", so no posting stupid stuff online, and no online bullying. Bullying back then wasn't some insult posted in a chat root, it was a broken jaw. I remember well facing my bully with a stick in my hand, and being knocked flat repeatedly by a kid with 30 pounds on me, while I cursed defiantly and got up to face him again.

8) Education system was "declining" then too.

9) I'd argue that the cold war and the constant threat of total, global annihilation far outweighs a few school shootings. Or did you forget that little detail?

No, of course not, because that's not what "I" means.

I had to interview over 5k of them just to come up with 150 that were anywhere near hiring

You interviewed five thousand people? Are you sure you have that number right? Assuming you interviewed five people a day every single working day, it would take you four years to interview that many people. That's assuming no time off, no sickness, a steady supply of candidates, etc. I know a fair number of people in HR across a few organisations, and they don't manage to interview anywhere near that many people on a regular basis.

The only reason he airline industry is not a natural monopoly is because of the massive public infrastructure provided by the US Government FAA in public use airports and related flight control infrastructure. In every meaningful sense, an airport solves the "last mile problem" for airplanes. Why wouldn't we expect a similar investment in the "last mile problem" for Internet Service?

SouthWest doesn't own the Oakland Airport; they merely lease a terminal. Can you imagine what would have happened if Delta had owned the airports too?

What does any of that have to do with the story here? The tracking device wasn't added by the police or even at the behest of the police, but by the buy-here-pay-here dealer, operating a business of the same respectability as payday lending and rent-to-own stores, who expect their customers to default. This wasn't done for cops but for repo men.

By all means complain about a violation of privacy, but it isn't by the state. Rather this is the result of a financial system that promotes, aggravates, and profits off of poverty.

You're comparing two numbers from different sources. The "more than 30" source is "news reports suggest". The "less than 3%" source is Virgin Galactic. It's not that Virgin Galactic can't add up, it's that they have more accurate numbers than suggestions from news reports.

I've seen this lame list for 10 years, pretty much trolling bait. But based on this, I wonder if you even know how DKIM works?

Pretty touch to crack legitimate encryption.

Not at all. You can use it, or not. If you don't use it, you essentially give permission for black hats to spoof your identity. Also, if you are an admin, you can choose what you do with DKIM.

How is being able to protect your account from being spoofed going to affect business?

Why would you need one? DKIM is done via DNS and is under the control of the record holder.

Do you actually know how DKIM works? Each of these points are either effectively made better with DKIM or are irrelevant.

Care to name one?

How is DKIM a whitelist? You really have no idea how this works, do you? Did you just fill in some boxes at random?

I'll address a single point on here, to show how DKIM works rather well even in the worst of the points:

One of the products my company provides for schools is a "mailing list reflector" that in practice works very much like your average mailing list. In order to ensure delivery, all outbound email is signed with DKIM, even though we're really just forwarding the original message to the mailing list recipients.

How is this done? Well, we use a dummy address for the "From" field like "originaluser@gmail.com " and then set the reply-to field to match the original sender. Thus, DKIM passes as we provide keys for mycompany.com, the user is "From" mycompany.com, and the end user is able to reply to get a message back to the sender without involving our mail server at all.

It's a compromise, but it works well and we've had virtually no complaints.