Whether runtime generated or downloaded from the internet, you cannot run instructions directly on the processor without requesting executable virtual pages in memory from the OS. Executable pages are also a major security vulnerability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JIT_spraying
I found just disabling these kind of Wi-Fi direct / local sharing features on macOS solved some latency I was seeing during online games. For example: Universal Control when enabled would cause the connection to choke for a few seconds when waking my iPad nearby.
Property tax seems to me like the most fair of all taxes as the greatest value provided by the state is the enforcement of private property and ownership.
but this enforcement is utilized by all, for all property and ownership, not just people with land. Why is a land owner paying more taxes than say, a shareholder, or a gold hoarder?
Shareholders and gold hoarders pay too. Unless they don’t live in The country, or if they rent in which case they pay indirectly through what they pay to their landlord.
> if they rent in which case they pay indirectly through what they pay to their landlord.
a land tax is not recoup-able via higher rent. If the rent could be raised, the landlord has no reason not to raise it, so it makes sense that the rent is the maximum the market bears.
> Shareholders and gold hoarders pay too
they don't pay a % tax of the value of their holdings as tax annually. They pay only after they sell, and make a capital gains.
Interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed Outer Wilds (no "The" btw) and Return of the Obra Dinn and would say they are two of my favorite games ever, but I just could not for the life of me get into The Witness. I was just plain bored after a few hours.
Well, different strokes and all that I guess. Anyway, I strongly support your recommendations.
Same here. As well as Outer Wilds, I recommend Obduction, it's from the makers of Myst and is the most similar game I've seen to Outer Wilds. There are also Talos Principle and Antichamber, a couple games clearly inspired by Portal. Talos Principle feels like Portal 3 to me, while Antichamber is a non-Euclidean version of Portal.
It's true that the new core slipped from A15 to A16. The improvements while real were just clock bumps. I'm interested to see if M2 will use the new cores or not.
I don't think you considered the loss of the 30% from each apple music customer's previous subscription to a competitor. There's no unfair advantage, the maximum profit apple can make by switching a customer away from spotify is spotify's profit.
It's known that music licensing costs are about 50% of gross subscription prices. So a subscription to spotify is about 50% to rightsholders, 30% to apple, and 20% to spotify as their profit. A subscription to Apple music is 50% to rightsholders, and 50% to apple. The additional profit Apple makes from converting a Spotify customer is only 20% (50%-30%), the same profit that any other competitor to Spotify (such as Tidal) would make on a conversion.
Now, Apple could afford to lower their subscription costs to below Spotify's, selling below "cost" at say 75% rate. So they are still "making money" per subscription, but at a price which is unsustainable to Spotify, which seems at first glance unfair and is what I think the comment chain is picturing. But what's happening here is that Apple as a whole is actually making less money on an Apple Music customer (25% margin) than a Spotify customer (30% margin), so it's not profitable or a good business decision versus the alternative. And we don't see apple doing that, at least where I live both subscriptions are the same price. It only works if you are able to drive Spotify out of business, then jack up the prices, but that anticompetitive opportunity to "dump" is possible for Apple in essentially any market due to their vast vast cash reserves.
In my view the potentially anti-trust advantages Apple has over Spotify mainly come from the fact Apple Music is preinstalled and is promoted to iOS users through push notifications.
Disagree. If Apple only had their Music app, they wouldn’t have to maintain the whole ecosystem that comes along with the app store that allows Spotify to exist as an iOS app. Maintaining that system is where the 30% goes. Would anyone then say Apple had an unfair advantage as to who could have a streaming platform on iOS?
Spotify would be free then and are now to make a web based player like youtube or soundcloud.
Strange how Spotify managed to create and distribute their app entirely without Apple's "help" on macOS, but would somehow be incapable of doing the same on iOS.
What if spotify can get 1 customer at $1, but apple can get 2 customers at $0.7, to get $1.4.
Alternatively, if for some reason there's just a single lump of music streaming revenue to be earned, maybe it's still shitty if Apple steals spotify's business but breaks even on the opportunity cost.
Something which is unintuitive is that the 30% payment fee does not advantage Apple as much as it seems. Converting a customer to Apple Music from Spotify can't increase Apple's profit by more than what Spotify lost. You have to consider that the App Store's revenue will be reduced by that 30% cut if they are not charging that to the Apple Music department.
