The article doesn’t say where the Home Depot token was published. Almost certainly not on GitHub or it would have been invalidated. But AFAIK GitHub doesn’t crawl other sites looking for GitHub tokens. I suppose Microsoft could provide GitHub a feed of GitHub tokens found by their Bing crawlers.
This was the first one I looked for as well, NFCU is (per Wikipedia) the largest CU in terms of size and membership in the US - but wasn't included. I think you should add a "how I chose these Credit Unions" on your overview, as missing NFCU immediately made me wonder what others were missed; RBFCU - largest in TX and 10th largest in US - is missing as well. So I'm left to wonder how 2 of the largest CUs in the country were just... missed.
Where else would the CI service for a Microsoft product be invented? NIH is a weird insult in this context. If Microsoft had instead acquired a CI service you’d be complaining about how they’re reducing competition.
Microsoft had their own CI service and it existed before GitHub Actions did, it was renamed Azure Dev Ops but it existed before GitHub Actions and it was largely similar from what I remember.
Okay, so you're a hyper capitalist. Good, I dig that. Me too.
Big tech is literally a machine putting a ceiling on your ability to build.
They tax and control everything, lock down distribution, prevent you from operating without rules.
If you get big enough, they self-fund an internal team to compete with you. Or they offer to buy you for less than you're worth. If you don't accept, they buy your competitor.
Capitalism should be brutal. Giant lions that can't compete should starve and give way to nimble new competition.
You shouldn't be able to use your 100+ business units to subsidize the takeover of an entirely unrelated market.
They are an invasive species and are growing into everything they can without antitrust hedge trimming. Instead of lean, starving lions, they're lion fish infesting the Gulf of Mexico. They're feasting upon the entire ecosystem and putting pressure on healthy competition.
Your own capital rewards are cut short because of their scale.
Do you like not being able to write apps and distribute them to customers? It's okay to pay their fee, jump through their hoops, be locked to release trains, pay 30%, forced to lose your customer relationship, forced to use their payment and user rails, forced to update on their whim to meet their new standards - on their cadence and not yours?
Do you like having competitors able to pay money to put themselves in front of customers searching for your brand name? On the web and in the app stores? So you have to pay to even enjoy the name recognition you earned? On top of the 30% gross sales tax you already pay? And those draconian rules?
That's fucking bullshit.
We need more competition, not less.
Winning should not be reaching scale and squatting forever. You should be forced to run on the treadmill constantly until someone nibbles away at your market. That's healthy.
Competition from smaller players should be brutal and unending.
That is how we build robust, anti-fragile markets that maximally benefit consumers. That is how we ensure capital rewards accrue to the active innovators.
Apple and Google are lion fish. It's time for the DOJ, FTC, and every sovereign nation to cull them back so that the ecosystem can thrive once more.
Do you like not being able to write apps and distribute them to customers? It's okay to pay their fee, jump through their hoops, be locked to release trains, pay 30%, forced to lose your customer relationship, forced to use their payment and user rails, forced to update on their whim to meet their new standards - on their cadence and not yours?
Most of this isn’t even true. It’s 15% for most app sellers, you don’t have to use their user auth, you can maintain a direct customer relationship just fine, you’re not locked onto a release train, you only have to update when things change if you want your app to work (like literally any platform).
> They tax and control everything, lock down distribution, prevent you from operating without rules.
You seem to be arguing that the EU should be doing that though. What about those of us who quite like the way Apple does things right now? I'm happy to pay extra for a lot of your dot points, I quite like someone to be acting as a firewall between my device and the unfettered soup that is stuff out on the internet.
Apple's product is a well curated walled garden. I certainly understand why there are a lot of people on HN who don't like that - they see 30% that they can't claim. But one of the reasons Apple is so successful is because they know how to create a great phone experience.
>> Apple is so successful is because they know how to create a great phone experience.
I disagree, may be they were at some time. Now they are successful because the walls of the well are so high. It is insanely difficult for us frogs to jump. Happy that governments are trying to bring those walls down
>> I am happy to pay extra for a lot of your dot points.
Good for you because you trust them. Problem is I am not. I dont trust apple/google to make that decision for me. But they dont give that choice. They are making you sacrificing freedom, choice by masking them self as secure. But underlying motive is profits and control.
I heard a story that apple asked meta for comission on ads , when meta rejected they introduced features to remove access to usage metrics to 3rd party apps. If meta agreed , you might never see the privacy features app introduced.
The security you are thinking is a believable mirage. There are several users who have lost thousands of dollars to scammy appstore in app purchases/subsciptions and apple is doing shit to stop this.
> The security you are thinking is a believable mirage. There are several users who have lost thousands of dollars to scammy appstore in app purchases/subsciptions and apple is doing shit to stop this.
And the plan to make this the consensus view is to ban Apple-style curated app stores. That seems to be cheating. When Apple convinced me their App store model was better than the alternative they had to use, y'know, persuasion.
Nokia sorta died, but at the time back in the 2000s Apple had to get through the entire phone industry to establish the iPhone. If the Europeans had any idea how to manage this sort of ecosystem they'd still be running the show. They had an amazing market position to begin with. They flubbed it because no-one in the entire continent seems to know how to run an app store! Now they're legislating their bad ideas in. It is a very European approach to commercial innovation and success.
yes I agree, but we need to change with the age. in early 2000's it is hard to distribute apps/software, and 30% commission made sense.
now it is not, there are several people/companies who can make the app distribution better, efficient for all consumers. they can bring it down to a fraction (apple itself has by now bought it to a fraction of what it costs in 2000).only reason they are not passed down to consumer is because they made sure there is no competition (by force(google paying samsung to not develop its app store) or by design (Apple limiting 3rd party installs and discouraging webapps) - basically how a monopoly/duopoly behaves). it is bad for us consumers
if apple has developed all the tools libraries itself from scratch , put hardwork and sweat into it, i wont have a issue. we all know thats not the case and how much opensource tools helped.
> Okay, so you're a hyper capitalist. Good, I dig that. Me too.
Nothing in GP's comment gave any indication that they were a "hyper capitalist". You're just being emotionally manipulative, disingenuous, and acting in bad faith. This is categorically inappropriate for HN.
Hmm well I certainly inferred the same from their comment: it casts “big tech” as the victim of the government, because the latter forced as “overpriced and shitty solution”
It’s possible they’re not a capitalist and just extremely sympathetic to Apple and/or Google specifically, but that seems more of a stretch than what that commenter (to whom you’re replying) has inferred IMO
Your assumption is equally incorrect, because the poster factually did not say anything like that. You can be upset at the EU for making performative regulation without addressing "real issues" or writing the regulation well, and yet still support strong regulation. The implication that criticizing the EU is equivalent to being a "hyper-capitalist" is such an insane belief that it borders on being farcical.
Assumptions like this are what lead to political polarization. Don't do it. Read what the poster wrote, don't try to read their mind, and use your brain responding.
Reading my previous comment, anyone with decent reading comprehension can tell that I'm describing a possible interpretation. I'm clearly not assigning it as fact, as echelon is.
I can also explain exactly why echelon's interpretation is unfounded, yet you cannot make any coherent argument and are forced to resort to allusions and baseless accusations stemming from a failure to read what I wrote. Although, that's consistent with a failure to read what ralph84 wrote, too.
At this point there aren’t any trijet designs like that being built, and it’s unlikely we’ll ever see a new trijet design. It served a role in the transition from four engines to two, but now with ETOPS-370 there’s no commercially viable route that can’t be served with an appropriate twinjet.
There are several passenger trijets still existing - they are just not commercial airliners. Dassault for one is quite fond of the design; the Falcon 900, 7X and 8X are trijets, and I'm pretty sure the latter two are still in production. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see another trijet design from them probably around 2030.
Water in the ground from leaky pipes will travel in all directions. Some of it may end up back in the aquifer, but some will end up on the surface and evaporate. Depends on conditions near the pipe and the volume of the leak.
reply