> Why do the job if you have actual contempt for your users?

To... To get paid, isn't that obvious? Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

I mean, yes, in retail or the service industry, but it should be possible to find a job in IT where you can at least tolerate the end users (or just never see them altogether).

I've never seen a more biased, unsubstantiated, "back in my day" comment on HN. Well done. Give specifics if you want to be taken seriously instead of just saying "well, back in my day everything was better".

Spectre is a special case and I think you know it's a special case. Cut it out.

Why's it not a valid counter-example? It's a special case because it doesn't fit the 90 day estimate? Well yeah that's why it's a counter-example.

Because at it's core, it's a hardware design flaw, not a software bug.

Also it affected multiple vendors, not one, so coordination across a minimum of 10 major organizations (google, apple, MS, Amazon, Intel, amd, Linux, etc.) breaks the normal assumptions behind project 0.

Given those issues, different rules make sense. It's not a normal case where a single vendor has a flaw that can be fixed with a single patch.

Well,expecting there to be a patch without the 90 day exploit exposure is very generous. The whole point of a 90-day (or any arbitrary stretch of time) deadline is that a lot of companies are funny when it comes to exploits. Security doesn't ever make a company money, it's a high cost that can only (at best) hope to prevent the company from having to make reparations after a breach, maybe lose a few customers. As such, many companies treat security reports with indifference and do nothing whatsoever about reported exploits until they're forced to. The only real way private researchers or security groups like Project Zero have to light a fire under the company concerning the exploit is to release the exploit to the public when it becomes clear that the company isn't going to fix the vulnerability on their own. At least now consumers are made aware of the exploit and can make an informed decision on a plan of action. 90 days, 180 days, a year... it doesn't matter because people would criticize the length of time no matter what it is.

Exactly. I run my own arch distro and still recognize that macs are used by large numbers of higher ups in every single company I consult at.

There comes a point where the time and energy I'd have to spend on troubleshooting, tool selection/purchase, part ordering, and temporarily learning the skill become more important to me than saving a few hundred bucks. I just could not care less. I used to be a very avid DIY'er, but eventually I passed a point where most of the time I'd rather pay someone else to solve a problem.

Sources, please.

That's funny, it almost sounds like you're suggesting it's common to have a job that's more relaxing and restful than actual leisure time.

Yupp, because so many apps are open source.

Apple isn’t stopping anyone from open-sourcing their apps.

That's an interesting argument you bring up here. Why aren't more people open-sourcing their apps? Especially with a client-server architecture, you can simply keep the server part closed. I'm an iOS developer, but there's usually not all that much of interest in the iOS client.

While I'm sure I'm in the minority, I absolutely do have the birthright to control what content appears on my device. If they want to prevent ads from being blocked, blocking me from using their service is 100% fine by me.

But that's not the same. You have the right to control your content, but that's not what's happening here. Presumably in this example you want to use Spotify (otherwise the whole conversation is moot) but they don't want to you circumvent how their service works. You're not the one controlling this situation, Spotify is.

Your statement sounds very akin to "fine, kick me out of this party I was clearly enjoying, I don't want to associate with these kind of people anyway..." which feels disingenuous.

I think you really just don't care that much about using spotify, which is a perfectly cromulent opinion.

The analogy doesn't seem right. It's more like you are at a party and the clown they hired goes on your face to yell something. You have the right to move away and enjoy the party elsewhere. And now they'll kick you out of the party if you don't allow the clown to yell at you, ok, I'll leave the party myself in that case.

more like they threw a party where you could pay a cover charge to get into the room with no clown or you could get in for free and know you had to deal with a clown. you decide to go in for free and just duck tap the clown's mouth shut because you felt you deserved to be at the party without paying and without having to deal with a clown.

This seems like the best way of describing it.

Except the clown paid to host the party with the caveat that they get to yell at people. It's their party that you're getting to enjoy for free. You tried to get the benefit without any cost despite he terms being known and now the clown is kicking you out as a result.

Not the person you're responding to. That's between the clown and whoever is hosting the party. Not my problem. I'm just avoiding having the clown yell in my face, given that I also know that the clown is malicious and pulls pranks on people sometimes. Sure, I have the option of buying a card that I can show the clown that will make him go away, but I'd rather just leave instead. There are plenty of other parties out there.

Or you pay the cover charge to get into the clown-free party?

> I think you really just don't care that much about using spotify

I think anybody that can say they "care a lot" about using Spotify pays for a subscription.

Have you found a way to block all the ads on your radio and TV too?