The main impact of prop 19 is making it possible for the elderly to not be forced to move to another state if they decide to downgrade to a smaller home. It likely has minimal impact on people's ability to move closer to their jobs, because it is limited to people 55 and older, so less than a quarter of California's workforce qualifies for transferring the cost basis to a new property.

More to the point, the people most likely to change jobs are younger workers, and none of them qualify.

As for Modoc to Beverly Hills, the difference in market value is added to your assessment. So if you bought a $50,000 home in the middle of nowhere that has appreciated to $300,000, and you trade up to a $3 million home, your new tax basis value is $2.75 million ($3 million minus $300k plus $50k). So it really doesn't make much difference in that case, practically speaking.

And that's when the corporate systems are configured to warn if you try to share something with or from the wrong account, and you shame the user into doing it right. Besides, this is usually only a problem for brand new users. Once you have a bunch of files uploaded to both accounts, you're not going to suddenly see the files from your personal account, and think, "Oh, this is where my work stuff goes".

It's only confusing if you have access to the same files from both accounts. And then, yeah, you'll get confused about which account is editing the file, but it's not as if it really matters in that situation.

You're the one claiming it's well-known, but you are unable to provide a single link.

Figures.

Worth it for what? If the answer is a different financial motivation, then it's just a different form of corruption.

NONE of them have done this, not in 250 years. Not until Trump. Presidents make a lot of money after they leave office, yes, especially in recent decades. They command incredible speaking fees (Obama famously got $400k for one speech), they write books that make millions, etc. There are lots of people who are willing to give them money to get close to them, get their advice, etc.

But until Trump, none of them has used the office of the president to make money. No one else has sold pardons. No one else has set up a public stock and a memecoin to facilitate billions of dollars in bribes. No one else has brazenly sold insider secrets to stock traders.

Trump's corruption isn't just new in scale, it's a completely new thing that the United States of America has never before seen. We've seen plenty of corruption elsewhere in government, at all levels, but never in the oval office.

And now, by suing a bunch of former employees, they're giving employees who might be thinking about jumping ship a reason to pause. Whether Apple wins or loses the lawsuit, Apple wins.

They know what they are doing. The UK government has never believed in privacy rights. They know they're doing a disservice to everyone. They don't care.

And the only rational answer is to cut them off. No more iCloud storage for anyone residing in the UK. And for anyone else, immediate denial of access from the minute you set foot in that country to the minute you leave. This is the only reasonable option.

And ultimately, this is the reason why Cloud storage shouldn't even exist. The minute you depend on someone else for storage, you can't completely 100% guarantee that your data is not in someone else's hands. If you store it on hardware you own, not built by the company that sold the backup software, then people will be able to verify that data is getting pushed to only a single destination, and if they started cheating and sending it to two different services, folks would likely notice. It's not perfect, but it makes back doors a lot harder to pull off without detection.

We need Time Machine for iOS, backing up over encrypted SMB to servers on our home network that we control. Fix that gap, and none of this matters anymore.

Right, the land rightfully belongs to whoever owned it second-to-last! Not to the people the second-to-last owners forcibly ejected from it, of course, and not to the people who own it now, only to the second-to-last.

</sarcasm>

I think we should have more respect than we do for the indigenous peoples, but pretending that there was no war and no forcible land grabs before the Europeans arrived is not just ahistorical but ignorant of human nature. Polynesian history, which includes the Hawaiians, is incredibly bloody. The Europeans dominated when they arrived not because they were more violent -- there's a good case to be made that they were less, though it's a question of degrees, not kind -- but because the Enlightenment gave them much better tools. And, of course, because centuries of city living had bred up a bunch of diseases, but that's part of the same story.

Did European arms and power make it "right" that the natives were conquered? No. But it wasn't "right" that the natives conquered each other, either. Humanity -- also as a result of the Enlightenment and the long, slow development of humanism -- has become more moral and less violent, and we now have more respect for other cultures and other peoples. And that's a good thing! But it doesn't make sense to project our own moral views back in time, and it definitely doesn't make sense to do so selectively, demonizing the winners and lionizing the losers.

The only thing that really makes sense is to apply our improved (though still very imperfect) morality to the situation we have now, messy, complicated and conflicted as it is. It's nice to give the native Hawaiian culture some respect, but it's wrong to give it more respect than that of Hawaii today.

Not sure anyone is having to provide an incentive. While in small quantities, old models of Chromebook might cost as little as $200 on sale, chances are good that schools are spending more like $400 to $500 on average for their devices.

At just $600 for the Neo (the current educational price), the cost difference is minimal now. And if your teachers are already using Macs, that's one fewer platform to support. And if the hardware lasts longer (to be determined), then that could easily make up the remaining cost difference.

To be clear, the language would have to change if you wanted it to outlaw corporate surveillance, because the existing one applies only to government. And I suppose the new one would also have to explain "corporate" and how that's different from other kinds of organizations or surveillance by individuals.

It really isn't complex. Google does it just fine. You have an account picker in the upper right corner, and you choose which account you're using to interact with that app. No big deal.

Having a mechanism to use one account for music and a different one for app stores? Now that's complex. That's adding special-casing for each app that needs to handle a separate account, instead of designing the auth system correctly to support multiple accounts to begin with. It's almost always easier to do it right than to add a bunch of special-case workarounds everywhere.

I also disagree with the claim that 99.9% of users only have one iCloud account — not because it isn't currently true, but because it is true only tautologically. If the system is designed so that no person can meaningfully use more than one account, then no one is ever going to create or attempt to use more than one account. What this means is that no businesses will ever use iCloud accounts for their internal messaging system, etc. Apple is basically shutting themselves out of the business ecosystem altogether by design.

They've designed the system in a way that makes what you're saying true, so of course it is true. But that doesn't mean that 99.9% of users would not *benefit* from it not being true. In an ideal world, iCloud would compete head-to-head with things like Office 365. They have the tech, but limiting it in ways that make it useless for business purposes means they aren't actually competing.

Everyone has to make their own decisions. I would discourage people from believing that SLTS kernels will be anything like secure by the end of their lifecycle. If that doesn't matter for some application, then fine. If it does matter then arguing that the SLTS kernel must be secure because recertifying is expensive is... not really an argument.

FWIW, in my day job I'm making this same point to people building cars with an expected 20-year lifespan. I think the right conclusion is "Don't use Linux". If you need long-term assurance, use something smaller, simpler, with much less attack surface. And then buy an ironclad long-term support contract for that.

The root cause comes from these twelve words:

Authentication systems that allow only a single signed-in account are defective by design. Approximately 100% of all people have more than one account that they need to be signed in with.

I have half a dozen Google accounts for specific purposes — one for work, one for personal, one for electronic music tablets to which multiple people share physical access, a couple of old domain-specific accounts that got converted from free work profiles, and I'm probably forgetting some. Not all of these are useful, but if I could not have continuous access to work and personal, it would be a tremendous pain in the backside.

And encouraging people to merge profiles like that is nuts. It all but guarantees leaks. A confidentiality agreement typically protects things you learned in the scope of your employment, but after you are employed, if they continue to send you confidential information, there's a decent chance that you aren't under any legal obligation to keep that secret.

This is just a really bad way to do things, driven by a fundamental flaw in their architecture. And it doesn't just cause problems for Apple. It causes problems for their customers as well. I can't have a separate iCloud account for my work. I have to use a Google account. And more than that, when I hit the maximum number of AirTag devices (which I'm about to reach), I can't add additional iCloud accounts. I'm hard-capped at a single account.

While we're at it, the limitation of a single user per iPad stems from the same defective design process. All of those sorts of 1:1 mapping decisions between accounts, users, and devices need to be fundamentally rethought, because they were always a mistake. Maybe now that Apple is being bitten by it, they'll finally do the things that users have been asking them to do for the last decade. Bonus points if they lose their lawsuit because of a lack of a modicum of care on their part, because that just might be enough to wake the sleeping giant and get them to fix this mess.

It's thankless, yes. Necessary, or even a good idea? I think that's debatable. Actually LTS is probably a good idea... but I'm very skeptical of SLTS. I don't think CIP is going to be successful at keeping 10 year-old kernel versions secure. If you need 10 years, you should either plan to do the work necessary to upgrade to new kernel versions periodically or you should assume that it's just going to be insecure and isolate it or otherwise shield it from attack.

That's not what I meant about taxes. What I meant is that in California, your property tax assessment is set at purchase time. If you move to a new house, your new property is assessed at the new purchase price. That tax situation can easily create a five-figures-per-year disincentive towards moving closer to your job when you change jobs. It may not be your employer's problem, but it absolutely affects where people choose to work.

The corollary of that statement is that if employers truly want the best people, they're fundamentally doing themselves a disservice by demanding too much in-person time, because not everyone is that easily mobile. It also tends to discriminate against older workers, who are more likely to own a home, have kids in school, have a working spouse, and have various other things that tie them to their current residence and make commuting harder.

Yes, it's a trade-off, but there's no evidence that it is in employers' best interests to force employees to make that trade-off, and that's the point I was trying to make.