EMIRELADERO

6 ms·

1.
by EMIRELADERO 5d ago
Chesterton called it, quite fittingly, "The Puritan's opium".
2.
by EMIRELADERO 6d ago
For those interested, here's the actual code Chen talks about: https://github.com/tongzx/nt5src/blob/daad8a087a4e75422ec96b...
3.
by EMIRELADERO 8d ago
No. A difference of degree is still a difference, and Trump 2 is vastly and openly more corrupt than any other administration, Democratic or Republican.
4.
by EMIRELADERO 9d ago
> They will have one of the strongest incentive: to remain at the top. At the top of what? After all the massacres the remaining billionaires and their families would be all that's left of humanity. Who would want to rule over a hum
5.
by EMIRELADERO 9d ago
The state is made up of human beings too. I don't see why they would want most of humanity to starve. Even a power-hungry psycho wants to have people to rule over, and I don't think the average politician's neurotic traits ar
6.
by EMIRELADERO 9d ago
The government is made up of human beings too. I doubt most of them are psycho to such a degree as to let 99% of humanity die for no real reason.
7.
by EMIRELADERO 28d ago
The individual instance of API functionality is owned by the user, even if the intellectual property itself is owned by Apple. What makes the user's API usage legal is the fact that they own the device and the individual iOS copy insid
8.
by EMIRELADERO 28d ago
> Suppose that a developer discovers a bug in the Apple Music API that allows songs to be played without paying for the Apple Music subscription. Are you claiming that if a developer writes an app to exploit this bug, they're not do
9.
by EMIRELADERO 28d ago
> I don't see how the consumer's right to use the iPhone automatically grants a legal right for third-party developers to distribute executables using Apple's licensed technology. Because calling APIs is not a "use&qu
10.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
> A consumer can download Xcode, build their own app, install the app on their own device, and use Apple API, all for free. What they can't do is distribute that app to other consumers. I was referring to the distribution of the lic
11.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
> That's your claim. Neither Apple nor the EU appear to agree. Nor do US courts appear to agree in the Epic v. Apple trial. This point was never raised in any of those cases. Apple just did aome hand-waving "IP compensation&quo
12.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user. By "the SDK" I meant the dev environment stuff, not the API base on the phone.
13.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
> They have no power to prevent you from doing anything you want to your device. Just like Ford has no power to stop me from modifying my truck in any way I want. Or any other product from any other company. They have the technical abili
14.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
> An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No, because Apple cho
15.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
> Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks? A restaurant is private property, you're just a customer in someone else's turf. A
16.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
Better business for a specific company doesn't mean better markets for consumers and other participants, and we make laws to ensure the latter even if it's at the expense of the former.
17.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
> If you don't even have any experience with iOS development, then you have no basis for making any claims about that subject, and thus I'm not going to bother explaining "What would be so outlandish about that?" The
18.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
? It's you who has started to argue by replying to my comment in the first place.
19.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
What would be so outlandish about that?
20.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project. I'm no LLM evangelizer and hate the hype train as much as any competent dev. The truth is though that LLMs are uniquely suited for work of this kind, and a team
21.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. If the DMA was enforced correctly this would have already happened.
22.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
The feeling of security and tightness on iOS does not come from its monopolistic restrictions on 3rd-party devs.
23.
by EMIRELADERO 29d ago
> "These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution." [...] > "The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale,
24.
by EMIRELADERO 1mo ago
The moral justification for the existence of poverty is one of purpose and worth through contribution to society. The family member of an ultrarich baron can sleep at night mostly due to the idea that those who are rich contribute value to
25.
by EMIRELADERO 1mo ago
Because 7.5 billion people with nothing to lose would quickly turn chaotic and mass-murdery. 90% of humanity in idle poverty is impossible to justify, at least today they do something of value that can be used as a retort by the morally u
26.
by EMIRELADERO 1mo ago
Not comparable at all. The Iranian protesters are/were a minority group within a country that itself makes up 1.1% of humanity. I'm talking about morality here, not practical ability. The ultrarich have their circle of friends and
27.
by EMIRELADERO 1mo ago
Apathetic mass-murder is unjustifiable, and the ultrarich would need to justify it to their families, who would then need to justify it to other people they know, and so on. And remember that we're talking about the majority of the glo
28.
by EMIRELADERO 1mo ago
Everyone should read this about "happiness": https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... > "It would seem that human beings are not able to describe, nor perhaps to imagine, happin
29.
by EMIRELADERO 1mo ago
The former, because it's anthropomorphizing a model. Anthropic is especially guilty of this. They have been using such language for a while, like when they analyze model weights for mechanistic interpretability and call it the model&#x
30.
by EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
You are right to feel that way about the frontier labs, especially Anthropic. From https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/ > "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have fi

More ›