<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>judofyr</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s a bit of a strange choice, but if you read the full documentation (man codesign) it&amp;#x27;s not too confusing actually:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    NAME
           codesign — Create and manipulate code signatures
    
    SYNOPSIS
           codesign -s identity [-i identifier] [-r requirements] [-fv] path ...
           codesign -v [-R requirement] [-v] [path|pid ...]
           codesign -d [-v] [path|pid ...]
           codesign -h [-v] [pid ...]
           codesign --validate-constraint path ...
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
The first argument to codesign &lt;i&gt;has&lt;/i&gt; to be one of -s, -v, -d, -h, --validate-constraint and in reality it&amp;#x27;s closer to a subcommand (similar to how git as pull, push, merge etc). After that &amp;quot;-v&amp;quot; works as a regular option.&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I read the man page even further, and I was slightly wrong: It appears to be possible to pass regular options &lt;i&gt;before&lt;/i&gt; the operation, but you&amp;#x27;re required to have one (and only) one operation.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Apple. Apple Please</title><url>https://digipres.club/@misty/112927898002214724</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>godelski</author><text>I hate Apple products, but I just hate Windows more and am willing to give Linux a pass more.&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  Why are core util programs different?
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
Seriously! I know it&amp;#x27;s BSD based, but let&amp;#x27;s be real, you _should_ be able to use a command one-to-one from linux to OSX. That should be the goal. These are __core utils__! And you&amp;#x27;re gonna tell me that flags are different?&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  Brittle AI features with obviously insufficient testing
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
I&amp;#x27;ll be fair, Apple isn&amp;#x27;t alone in this. But have you all heard about augmentations? Do you all dogfood? Seriously, I&amp;#x27;ll consult because when my partner is on the train I don&amp;#x27;t want her voice suppressed and the train sounds amplified, I want the opposite. This is a solvable issue... But your features are doing the opposite of what they are intended to. To all AI production people: augment the shit out of your data, scrutinize the shit out of your data, don&amp;#x27;t throw it at the wall and see what sticks.&lt;p&gt;Apple has been good at design, and due that the &amp;quot;Apple way or the high way&amp;quot; was acceptable. Because at least the &amp;quot;Apple way&amp;quot; made some sense. But now the Apple way isn&amp;#x27;t about making the product better, it is about making it thinner. I know that&amp;#x27;s easier, but that&amp;#x27;s the cost at being on top. Don&amp;#x27;t abandon what got you there.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Apple. Apple Please</title><url>https://digipres.club/@misty/112927898002214724</url></story>