Any writes to WC in the meantime will just overwrite. Since Working Copy has no such auto sync as something like Dropbox would have, since WC is a git repo app and not a cloud files service, the user would manually open it themselves and make a commit and push it at their own choosing. With a git repo program like Working Copy, you’d just write into its Files space (same as above for Dropbox), then Working Copy handles the syncing. All you need to is ensure that you write into Files api properly (Ie don’t leave any locks around on files, etc - I’m not an iOS developer so I have no idea what’s actually required for very good/correct Files api interoperation, but it should be in Apple docs). So, supposing Dropbox has a sync with the files api, then that sync would be the responsibility (and implemented by) the Dropbox app. I really like the beauty of the iOS Files api - it acts as a very convenient bridge. It has enough quality of life features to be efficient, but you also don’t end up trying to import every pdf into it - allowing you to focus on making just the key notes. The former was too inefficient to stylize everything by hand without even keyboard shortcuts for bold, underline, etc, and the latter was too heavy handed in its insistence on visual placement for the user. I have given up on both LiquidText and MarginNotes - neither were able to offer me the visual learning I needed. I often ended up doing nested frames, so it wasn’t a big deal, but visually it was still jarring to see the highlight boxes that you’ve made to visually switch up their positioning on you due to the auto arrange. The one issue with Margin Notes is that it refuses to let you manually position the frames. (In comparison to Liquid Text - liquid Text has so few to 0 quality of life features, there was no nuance to figure out, other than knowing what poor quality of life implied for doing the visual styling that you needed to do). I also frequently held down the Apple key to see the shortcuts, and worked off from there. Being the hn type I enjoyed figuring out the nuances through heavy use. Coakley.Unfortunately, I don’t know of any. An incompatibility rule would be more consistent with the Roberts Court’s turn toward reviewing content-neutral speech restrictions rigorously, as evidenced in 2014’s McCullen v. In the place of ample alternative channels analysis, courts should ask whether a speaker’s chosen mode is incompatible with the government’s interest in the restriction in question.
O’Brien, shows that ample alternatives analysis was in its incipiency a misguided afterthought - born, as historical documents never examined before this Article show, as literally a margin note to an unpublished draft. And the origin of the doctrine, from Justice Harlan’s concurrence in United States v. The doctrine’s pernicious effects are expanding in the modern communications world, where speech-facilitating technologies grant an alternative means of expression to any infringed speaker. Ample alternative channels analysis instructs courts to engage in counterfactual, post-hoc reasoning as to the expressive choices the speaker could have made, but didn’t - i.e., to substitute the court’s own value judgments for those of the speaker’s. Permitting a speech restriction because the speaker could have communicated the same message another way distorts the First Amendment. It has set First Amendment jurisprudence on the wrong course.
Free speech scholars have ignored this principle.
The court then deems the restriction’s harm to the speaker’s expressive right as de minimis and upholds the law. If the ample alternative channels requirement is met, the message could have been expressed in some other legal way. The underlying rationale is substitutability.
In reviewing a content-neutral regulation affecting speech, courts ask if the regulation leaves open “ample alternative channels of communication” for the restricted speaker’s expression.