Build pipelines, bundlers, CSS frameworks with their own toolchains, progressive web apps, Core Web Vitals, SEO, layout shifts, and srcset/responsive images have nothing to do with client/server rendering.
As in - if you already have a windows PC and someone says "you should try a Mac" you can't just install MacOS, it requires you to buy a whole new PC from Apple. With Linux you can at least just install it in a second partition and use it that way untill you're sure it works for you, zero money required.
The point they were making is that a Windows user generally (Hackintoshing aside) can't just install MacOS in their existing computer; it requires purchasing another, Apple-brand computer.
One of a generic PC-compatible machine, available in all kinds of prices, with all kinds of specs, from all kinds of vendors - one of which you likely already own anyway.
You can make the same argument about the income tax and similarly limit the taxable income from it which will lead to the tax revenue being cut approximately in half.
Also, after Congress raided the Social Security account, they made the point that Social Security is just another tax subject to spending in the general budget.
If that's the case, there are as many arguments for capping/uncapping the FICA taxes as for all other taxes. The problem with such arguments is their appeal to a notion of fairness which has as many faces as economics theories out there - basically a dead end - courtesy of our not-so-diligent economics "science".
So, it's better to use the achievement of better economic, political and social results as the only guidance for fiscal policy, although that requires a level of analysis which far exceeds what mainstream economics has to offer.
Could you please expand on this: "after Congress raided the Social Security account..."? What do you mean by that? AFAIK, Social Security contributions stay within the Social Security Fund - they cannot be used by US government to pay its bills.
> Could you please expand on this: "after Congress raided the Social Security account..."?
I'd ask you, and others reading my previous comment, to scratch this off as a bad choice of words on my part and replace it with:
"by moving to a pay-as-you-go policy for the SSTF, Congress made the point that Social Security is just another tax."
Previously I used "raiding" as a far-fetched metaphor for several different processes which are too complex to discuss here and it would distract from the main point: instead of complex itemization, SSFT & MCFT would be better off as parts of general taxation.
> AFAIK, Social Security contributions stay within the Social Security Fund - they cannot be used by US government to pay its bills.
True in theory, but if we look at how surpluses are handled and how they depend on a manually controlled interest rate we'll see a different reality.
The poor industry, self-selecting for high-quality SDKs that macOS won't sign. Wouldn't they be upset if Apple ends up hurting themselves?
As rare as Apple is to admit it, there is this mercurial thing called "competition" that haunts the free market. OpenCL would have had an excellent chance if Apple took it as seriously as Nvidia took CUDA. But they didn't, it was thrown over the fence and expected that everyone else would do the work. While Nvidia was shipping Linux and BSD-native CUDA drivers, Apple was just distributing loose specs and begging the OpenCL working group to stop rewarding their competitor. Not for a lack of funding or motivation, Apple lost because they were butthurt.
OpenCL was DOA the moment Apple stopped treating Nvidia as a proper threat. Everyone else in the industry supported CUDA and was fine with it.
it's also not possible for Safari to be the new IE because they don't have 95% marketshare. And IE's unique problem was that they pushed features that only they supported. Safari's problem is it doesn't support certain features
Also the thing is that there are plenty of features supported by Safari and Firefox that Chrome is slacking on. Nobody every complains about those features though because nobody would try to use a feature not supported by Chrome in the first place
> The only people who think Safari is the new IE are people who weren’t around for IE.
Absolutely true! I've said the same thing many times myself.
Stating that Safari is the new IE is one of the answers to:
"Tell me you didn't do web development in '90s and have no idea what you're talking about without telling me you didn't do web development in '90s and have no idea what you're talking about."
reply