The news is just as shocking today as it was three months ago. How we deal with mental health is still something that we need to learn to handle better together. This is especially true in situations such as open source that are nominally technical but in reality heavily social.
That being said, in situations like these it’s especially important to remember that people’s mental state is often the result of complex circumstances that may be entirely out of your control. You can be talking to someone about programming one day and they’ll be gone the next.
I have nothing to suggest except having empathy whenever and wherever possible. You can’t fix everyone’s situation, but you can certainly do your best to provide support from your side. We might not have a magic solution for dealing with mental health but we know that this helps.
What I *do* know is that @jD91mZM2 had an incredibly positive impact on many, many people. I am so, so happy to see the outpouring of support for him. There is no better way to honor his legacy than to remember his achievements and how he brought value into all of our lives.
So, thank you @jD91mZM2. I am disappointed that our time together was cut short, but I am glad that we got a chance to meet.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It seems like it’s about that time of year when people try to impute meaning to Apple’s marketing version numbers and use them to form conclusions of internal development processes. Here’s a thread to demystify them to the best of my knowledge (would be glad to hear corrections!)
First, a couple of clarifications so we can talk about this consistently: if x is the major version, y the minor and z the patch, then for iOS/watchOS/tvOS, the marketing version number is of the form x.y.z. For macOS pre-Big Sur, it’s 10.x.y; it now seems to be x.y.z.
Myth #1: marketing minor versions and patch versions match internal development or have some other useful meaning.
AFAIK, these are mostly decided arbitrarily, hence why I call them “marketing”. The major version matters (updated yearly) but the others just increment on chance.
iOS 14 gives users the ability to control which photos they would like to share with apps, even when they request blanket permissions. @googlephotos specifically detects this and locks the user out until they give full access. I am surprised and outraged that this shipped.
I didn’t even know the API to detect this even *existed* before I noticed Google Photos using it (it’s developer.apple.com/documentation/…). It’s so easy to abuse that I can’t comprehend how it was added alongside the other photos changes, which were designed to be transparent to apps.
Perhaps the designers felt that @AppStore Review would catch misuse; Google is certainly violating section 5.1.1 clause (iv):