One common use case for the @ operator, is when "destructuring" array members into variables. In some cases, you can't know if the member will be available, but it's not important if it's missing. In that case, you can silence the warning.
It was implemented in some of the earlier Leopard beta's iirc. Possible speculation from my side, but it was probably removed due to licensing once Oracle expressed interest in acquiring Sun Microsystems.
As a side note, I personally HATE apps that opens links in an in-app web view (apps like Instagram, Facebook, etc). I really wish Apple could have a system wide preference where it could force in-app web views to open in the browser.
It has frustrated me for a LONG time that we have all collectively seemingly decide to break links.
It used to be that you could click a link in an app, it opens in your web browser where you're already logged in to the relevant service, so you get to see the content the link points to.
These days, you click a link in an app, it opens in an in-app web view where you're not logged in, so you just see a login screen.
Not even the "open in Safari" button works, since by the time you have the opportunity to click it, you've already been redirected to the login page. You literally have to long-press on the link, copy it, switch to your browser, and paste it in to the omni-bar. I don't understand how this god forsaken industry's UX "experts" have all agreed that this should be the universal user experience.
It's especially bad in apps like Slack, where 99% of the links I'm ever interested in are links to our internal gitlab, some internal knowledge base article, some internal tool, or some other thing that requires being logged in to view any of the content. Links just plain do not work almost ever in Slack without the manual long-press -> copy -> switch to Safari -> paste dance.
This behavior (as far as I can tell) has broken the Expensify iOS app for us at work. We have a conditional access policy that requires a “compliant” device to succeed the SSO login. However, only the iOS Edge browser can prove compliance and Expensify refuses to hand over that login process to the Edge browser preferring to use its own built-in browser. So login fail and as far as I can tell there is nothing we can do about it except for exempt that app from the conditional access policies.
The reason Expensify does that is because they want/need access to the cookies from the login flow. The in app browser provides the hosting application access to those, but they can't access Safari's cookiejar. The modern way of doing it is to put the login in Safari (or iOS's dedicated "in app browser for logins") and then redirect to something like expensify://login_complete?token=xxxxxx, which pops back over to the app. This is mostly tech debt on Expensify's part, but it might not solve the Edge vs. Safari issue.
> I wonder what iOS Edge does which iOS Safari doesn't do
Being a "Managed App" through MDM/Intune. Typically it's used when installing corporate apps in a BYOD scenario. The managed apps are isolated from information sharing with unmanaged apps, e.g. policies can be applied preventing copy/paste, access to Files.app, etc. It (and it's isolated storage) can also be remote wiped without nuking the whole device. Edge.app still uses the Safari rendering engine, etc. like is generally the case with 3rd party browsers on iOS.
You can't do this with Safari.app unless the whole device is managed, which doesn't work well for BYOD.
We have this policy at work and it’s infuriating. I had to install edge once to access some work resource and immediately uninstalled it. I can’t even access our GitHub without it, even through the official app.
Maybe what breaks that process is what Edge does not do and Safari does. There is more to a browser than the rendering engine. Furthermore, does Safari still uses an optimized JS engine that the other browsers cannot use?
> I wonder what iOS Edge does which iOS Safari doesn't do
I don’t know whether that’s right, but I read “We have a conditional access policy that requires a “compliant” device to succeed the SSO login. However, only the iOS Edge browser can prove compliance” as “our access policy does not allow logging in from Safari”. If that’s true, it’s not something Edge or Safari does or doesn’t do.
I hate in-app browsers, too, but there is a Slack setting that will let you open in Chrome or Safari (choosing Safari opens whatever your default iOS browser is).
You can change the Browser Application setting under Preferences after tapping on your Avatar in the Slack app.
> you click a link in an app, it opens in an in-app web view where you're not logged in
But you could be. You could log in from the in-app web view, and it would be remembered and compartmentalised in that app, so that next time you click a link you’re logged in.
Nowadays most providers (and IT teams managing SSO) log out stale sessions quickly, so by the time he clicked another link to it in Slack he'd probably be logged out, again.
To be clear, what I meant is that the logins inside the in-app browser do not affect the other in-app browsers and the main browser. I understand this is not your preferred solution, but it is a way to make the situation suck less.
That makes no sense. Are you getting phished from clicking a link someone you know posted in your internal company Slack? And use a password manager, those make sure the domain is correct.
I also love that app sizes get super bloated (several gigs per app) due to cached safari data from the in-app web view. Seems the only way to clear it is to go into settings and wipe the website data for safari entirely. I don't believe app developers can clear this themselves either, despite it appearing as their app taking up so much space when really it's just due to safari cache that seemingly doesn't clear on its own.
THAT is the source for the bloat? Oh dear. Absolutely shambolic. It is embarrassing that iOS gives no way to just completely nuke an app's cache, short of reinstalling the app.
I know they do, but the effectiveness of these "clear data" settings varies wildly and it's mildly infuriating. For instance, in my experience Telegram's works pretty well, X's not at all.
I get more frustrated from when they go the other direction. Google Maps, for instance. When I go to the website, it asks if I'd like to use the app instead, with the usual dark pattern of having the "no" button greyed out. But after I tell it no, as soon as I touch the search bar, it automatically opens the app anyway. I wish there was a setting in Safari that disabled websites from opening apps.
- showing focus-stealing modals when loading the page/app, which breaks the quick look functionality on iOS
- interrupting your workflow with tutorial popups (especially multi-step ones that point to different parts the screen) that demo or upsell a new feature, requiring you to dismiss them to continue
- not having an option saying "I'm a power user, stop explaining shit I already know"
To be honest, if the concept of growth hacking was erased from the universe, pretty much none of this crap would exist. Atlassian, Browserstack: I'm looking at you.
> I wish there was a setting in Safari that disabled websites from opening apps.
This has been one of my biggest iOS peeves for a long time—I really wish that installing an app wasn’t a commitment to letting it handle all of the links it wants to.
It’s particularly annoying because a lot of apps are terrible at actually handling the link: the app will show a login screen or some kind of interstitial and then just forget where you were going. That stupid behavior isn’t limited to web links either, it’s really great when it’s the app’s own push notification (thus irretrievable once tapped), but which the app will not even open properly 100% of the time.
There are a couple of imperfect workarounds (long pressing, incognito), but mostly I’d just rather have an option to limit or disable this behavior entirely—in the absence of that I’ve actually just uninstalled all of the worst offenders, I’m sick of having a million damn apps.
I understand that, what I was getting at is more that I, as a user, have little insight or control around when or where my phone will decide to open an app when I click a link, vs continue to work like a normal browser. The app developers declare their associations and url patterns and that's it.
I agree, it’s pretty obnoxious… But there is the same problem on Android, app handlers for verified domains cannot be disabled there, only the handlers for unverified domains (which are unticked by default, so opt-in).
My favourite part is when it opens a form or something to fill out but if you navigate away from this in-app web view to another app and back (say to get a password) you lose the session. It’s incredibly frustrating
Yeah Gmail does this on Android. Super annoying. You basically have to remember to always click "open in chrome". It's not like it even does anything different because it's already open in chrome, just in a tab that it will throw away at the drop of a hat.
I find gmail to be the absolute worst offender in this category.
1. They dark pattern you into downloading their browser (they give three options, two of which are chrome)
2. In not launching iOS, I’m not logged into the session I may already have open in safari. Which is incredibly painful for any product that sends notifications via email, which id like to action.
And if I do login, and it asks for an email verification code… fail. I can’t access it in gmail without closing the browser…
3. Their in app browser (or the way they re-write links?) doesn’t seem to play nice with opening the corresponding app. Never seems to work.
Incredibly user hostile.
Is there a better alternative mail client I can use with gsuite?
I’d think it was about tracking if I didn’t know that the ios api most apps use gives no access to what the user is doing. I feel like it must be some folk wisdom among app developers about “keeping people in the app”. It’s especially bad since the implementation always seems to struggle hard with self-links, eg if you open a web link in X then follow a link in the story to a tweet you get a broken result in most apps.
This small technical annoyance is one of the biggest issues… of modern society. They do that deliberately to keep users within their apps to drive up engagement. Which in turn drives down exposure to different opinions by keeping the user within the app driven by the same algorithm uninterrupted. If they to change default opening of web links as you would expect it, their revenue numbers would drop dramatically.
The lawmakers should be competent enough to recognise this problem and have laws against keeping people within the apps for no reason. (The only reason may be to use the web sign-in).
Imagine on desktop computer os, you click a link within WhatsApp app and it opens a window within that app and load the webpage there, without your login cookies, and makes you login if you need using mouse with on-screen keyboard only…
Yes I don’t have Chrome just Safari and it used to still insist on doing this. So it had none of my passwords saved etc. and was some brain dead Gmail browser.
I just tried again and it opened Safari, so maybe at some point they enabled a way to tell it to not do that? I see in the Gmail settings I have a setting checked for use default browser app.
So if you fixed this Gmail or iOS people thank you!
The main point of it is to force ads and tracking links. It's just anti-privacy. Any app that does it without a permanent way to disable it doesn't respect its users.
By default in X, Facebook and even Google News, you get an in-app browser by default.. you can change the behavior, but it's definitely the default. Just switched to a new phone and have been updating a lot of the settings as I notice them.
It goes both ways. If you try to post anything remotely criticizing Donald Trump or his government on /r/conservative you'll also get banned. Even if you try to keep it objective.
Fair point, I barely comment on that sub so my experience is limited.
I guess the ratio of well moderated subs compared to poorly moderated subs heavily skews towards the poorly moderated. Irrespective of their political viewpoints.
You already suspect this, but your expectations are out of line with the actual game/meta game/propaganda model there.
You as a person who uses reddit have a general agreement most likely with the concept of reddiquette, and perhaps go to engage with diverse views, maybe to learn something, maybe to just have an argument. Normal internet forum stuff.
However, you are arguing with a vertically integrated propaganda machine that is basically an experimental weapons testing facility for rhetoric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency but on so steroids, of which those steroids are on various white powders and no this isn't the War on Christmas.
It's less obvious because this machine mimics normal, centrist US culture in ways that slip under the cognitive radar.
You could more easily recognize this if it were AI prompts in the style of 1984 or Pravda; but it's more difficult in this case - it is just rational enough to be ridiculous/incredulous; that it seems like debate is a suitable avenue; it aligns to your context enough and while you might not agree; you could see how 1 in 10 people might be misled.
As a result, you engage and then one of the following happens:
- You make a point so salient they banhammer you because you cannot control the narrative.
- Or they mock you, and rally their "side" into feeling superior as a reaction/answer to their side's questioning of "huh, are we the baddies?". Of course not, it's the "loser woke left antifa attack helicopter pronoun'd TROUBLEMAKERS", who are an outgroup and just don't think about it too hard, k? Don't do the hard work of self examination! Just yell at this outsider!
As a result you aren't engaging with the centre right you hoped to; and if you even get close you will be removed as a threat, ASAP.
The game being played by one participant is "try anything that catches attention, causes fear and lures people to our mindset"; vs your (reasonable, but ultimately mistaken) view that rational debate would correct this and mutual understanding may emerge (and that's a positive; win win social outcome)
This isn't your fault, even longtime slightly centrist conservatives end up falling victim to this trap; when they realize their values don't align to the mechanics above, and are surprised when they are turned on by their former allies.
Unless you have a firm grounding in human psychology and few qualms about manipulation; it is unlikely that discourse or debate will get you anywhere if based on facts, not feelings.
I would firmly encourage you to keep the instinct to engage in discourse; but find social forums where it is a lot harder for a propaganda machine to control the narrative. Will still be tough, but face to face interactions in common spaces can build community.
The "other side" of the political spectrum or almost any group is absolutely just as liable to end up in this situation. It is not some "right wing" specific problem, it is a small but powerful group hijacking others to further their own goals, and people protecting their interests by funding the small group.
> a vertically integrated propaganda machine that is basically an experimental weapons testing facility for rhetoric
This is great lol
The specifics always depends on the subreddit, reddit doesn't pay moderators so its the wild west out there. You can find whatever echo-chamber you want honestly. Which subreddit does HN map to? Perhaps a mix of r/neoliberal and r/conservative (you know, healthy centrism /s)
Honestly, HN crowd is very diverse. I would say that it's a normal distribution here. There are some fascists/neonazi, some communists/anarchists and a lot of liberals/conservatives. I know that here is not the place for these kind of conversations, but it's funny how it's way better for that than other social media platforms. It's not perfect, of course, but perfect is not possible in real life.
Not really. There's few places on Reddit where you will be banned for expressing liberal opinions.
/r/conservative, a place for conservatives to discuss "from a distinctly conservative point of view", is one of them. It's kind of also in the name.
Do they ban conservatives for criticizing Trump? I don't know, perhaps. I'm going to assume many such comments on there will in fact be made by liberals.
Meanwhile, I was immediately permabanned from my country subreddit when I expressed a pro-Israel opinion in the comment section of a relevant post. In the Modmail I sent, the "moderator" basically insulted me.
> Do they ban conservatives for criticizing Trump? I don't know, perhaps
They won’t even allow you to comment there now unless they can interview you, audit your comment history across Reddit, and pre-confirm that you align with the message they want to allow.
Deviating will result in a ban.
Why are you commenting so much to defend a subreddit you admittedly don’t understand?
/r/conservative has absolutely nothing to do with conservatives, but everything to do with the cult-of-trump. It's a great place to read up on how completely crazy the world has become, if you had posted any thread there on the onion a decade ago absolutely nobody would have believed it to be possible.
If you think "any thread there" is that absurd, you are clearly not a conservative at all. You are another liberal ranting about /r/conservative, are you not?
It is in my opinion a very weak argument to point at /r/conservative specifically as an example for how the mainstream censorship on Reddit is not overwhelmingly liberal.
It’s not both all the other subs, the point under contention is about that you cannot be critical or reasonably discuss anything proper in r/conservative.
I don’t know if you have been following the sub, I have, and it always follows a similar pattern. If it’s a new topic, some discussion is allowed, but soon everyone needs to toe the party line.
Edit : I encourage free discussion on this point, instead of downvoting.
You are comparing one sub vs most all of reddit that touches politics. Reddit demographics is extremely liberal and anti-trump. This bleeds into so many subreddits that I participate in that have 0 to do with politics or Trump.
It gets that way when being pro trump gets you banned from r/politics, so all of those who are pro trump take over some other subreddit. It used to be they had their own, but after thedonald was banned they migrated to r/conservative.
The more you separate people the more unhinged they become. If you went back and talked about how reddit tried to hide that Biden was demented or that Harris was unpopular so would be a catastrophic election loss that would also have been onion worthy but today its reality.
That subreddit was taken over just like the conservative party in the USA was taken over. If you allow that to happen (both the party and the subreddit) then that's your problem. In other countries Trump would have had to found his own party, he'd still have captured a chunk of the vote but at least the Republicans that once were would not have squandered their identity. Now the house is on fire and it doesn't look like there are any mechanisms to stop it from getting much worse.
You don't let people like Trump near the levers of power if you want to keep your country in one piece. We have a similar problem here in NL and the only thing that saved us so far is that even the most rabid right winger will have to form a coalition. That still was a dime on its side and we'll see what happens at the next elections but single-issue-parties are less of a problem here, as are strongmen (though, like everywhere else, there is a fraction of the population that just wants to follow some glorious leader).
So, how is it working out for you so far? I find it hard to believe that otherwise intelligent beings can both make claims like this and at the same time observe reality. The USA has in all of its history since the civil war not been this divided. And it is falling off a cliff as we speak.
This is is deeply ignorant historically. The US has cycled through extreme division over and over. There was 100x more civil unrest over Vietnam, civil rights, reconstruction, early labor wars. We've had 4 presidents assassinated, one shot, but survived. There were 2,500 domestic bombings in the 1970s. In 1972 there were 31 plane hijackings - 1 every 12 days.
There is a lot of hot talk, a lot of insular bubbles working themselves into online frenzies, but it is, objectively, a boring, passive time out on the street. No, there is no cliff.
Outside of the USA: talk of invading Canada, Greenland, indiscriminate execution of people on the high seas, a tariff war that seems to be a series of own goals, destabilization of NATO, the burning of 75 years of goodwill.
Inside the USA: military in the cities, half the country is being depicted as 'the enemy' by those in power, an embarrassing cadre of incompetents are in powerful positions and are wrecking the departments they are nominally in charge of, North Korea style adulation of an idiot leader, attacks on judges and members of congress are on the order of the day, teams of masked man snatch people (men, women, children) off the streets and out of their beds, endless violations of the law by the authorities, naked power grabs and abuse of pardons, attacks on the free press, destruction of the machinery of the state are the order of the day.
Those things you mention were bad, but they were still within the framework of the normal functioning of a state, it never looked as though there was a real chance of the USA fracturing or turning on itself no matter how bad they were. But this time it looks very much different. If you can't see that then that's fine with me but 'historical ignorance' is an easy card to play if you have already decided that what's happening right now in the USA is business as usual, and to me it does not look like 'business as usual' at all. This is unprecedented, and it is getting worse every day.
What I think is happening is that the 'flooding the zone' strategy is working so well that people are simply no longer able to keep up with all of the assaults and they hunker down, hoping that it will pass them by. That's a coping mechanism.
Again you are speaking from ignorance, and the inability to differentiate online bubble talk, shit talking by politicians, and reality. The Candian PM was sitting in the White House laughing with the president two days ago, are you seriously saying there is some sort of invasion threat? I don't like that twitter shit talking has bled into people's actual mouths, but I am capable of understanding that it is just talk.
George HW Bush deployed national guard to cities to deal with unrest, Lyndon Johnson deployed the national guard multiple times to deal with unrest, Eisenhower didn't just deploy the National Guard, he sent in the 101st Airborne - the real army. The current deployments are small and peaceful in comparison.
> Again you are speaking from ignorance, and the inability to differentiate online bubble talk, shit talking by politicians, and reality. The Candian PM was sitting in the White House laughing with the president two days ago, are you seriously saying there is some sort of invasion threat? I don't like that twitter shit talking has bled into people's actual mouths, but I am capable of understanding that it is just talk.
The rest of the world - so outside of your bubble - hears that talk and is getting seriously worries. Not just about the leadership of the USA, but about the USA as a whole.
> George HW Bush deployed national guard to cities to deal with unrest,
But not on a pretext, though, arguably, he did start a major war on a pretext, so there's that.
> Lyndon Johnson deployed the national guard multiple times to deal with unrest, Eisenhower didn't just deploy the National Guard, he sent in the 101st Airborne - the real army. The current deployments are small and peaceful in comparison.
But they are on a pretext and that is what should worry you. The commander-in-chief has gone nuts to the point that he is inventing reasons to send the military into cities that do not want them.
But if you want to choose to ignore all that and pretend that everything is just a-ok, be my guest. We'll see how your comment ages.
>The rest of the world - so outside of your bubble - hears that talk and is getting seriously worries. Not just about the leadership of the USA, but about the USA as a whole.
Propaganda, Anxiety, none of it is real. Parent is right, its made up outrage and the US and world is better now than ever.
The only thing that is extreme is the hate spewed by both sides.
The anocracy variable is at the highest level since the first Civil War. Technically the system is blinking red, and the lack of street fighting is not an indication of Civil War, it's law-abiding discourse that separates polities from power access that determines Civil War.
Is that actually true? The U.S. was pretty damn divided in the late 60s.
Widescale race riots, Vietnam war protests, a President and Presidential candidate assassinated etc. That said a few cms or so difference and that bullet takes out Trump.
Certainly divided right now just genuinely not sure if it's quite at that level or not.
> That said a few cms or so difference and that bullet takes out Trump.
That could have been reversed. Kennedy could have lived and Trump could have been dead, either way, I was four at the time, my most recent memory from that era is the moon landing. But the depiction of half the nation as the enemy and the active tour of revenge that is happening right now is unprecedented, not even the McCarthy era - or at least, what I know of it - came close.
>Based on our own research and a review of related work, we can confidently say that most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, and right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism.
Of course this reply isn't for you.If you're spreading this level of rhetoric nothing is going to change your mind. Instead it's information for others.
You mean the convoluted enginnering exercise of service workers, in-browser proxies, and in-browser databases to simulate something native platforms don't need to care about?
Open System Settings, click "Sound" in the sidebar. Under the "Sound Effects" section, you'll find a toggle labeled "Play sound on startup". Turn this off to permanently disable it. Otherwise, the startup sound is tied to the audio level you had before last shutdown.
One common use case for the @ operator, is when "destructuring" array members into variables. In some cases, you can't know if the member will be available, but it's not important if it's missing. In that case, you can silence the warning.
$array = ['apple', 'pear']; @list($mainFruit, $secondaryFruit, $tertiaryFruit);
Since I suppress the warning that would occur due to the third member not being present, the program will continue executing instead of halting.