bentocorp

"I put it in the terms of use, so I am not responsible for what my poorly developer software does" only goes so far.

It could be argued, probably successfully, that this is a case of gross negligence and that Anthropic should be held accountable for harm caused due to their reckless actions.

Especially now that they have been made aware of the possibility, they also cannot claim ignorance of the potential issues.

Certain consumer rights, depending upon the country, also cannot simply be removed or waived due to a organisation's terms of use or implied contract.

Ok, so you've just admitted that you have deployed thousands of lines of likely non-human reviewed LLM generated code (Bun's rust rewrite) to millions of client machines (via the Claude Code app auto-update) with significant local client access credentials, in a relatively quick and rushed manner.

What's stopping the LLM from having unscrupulously injected something nefarious into the codebase that you are unaware of?

What's stopping future updates from the LLM from doing the same?

Are you aware of the potential ramifications of deploying thousands of lines of non-human reviewed code to millions of users machines?

Are you happy to be personally responsible for the horrendous outcomes that could occur in these situations?

Calling distillation an 'attack' is exactly what I've been describing as "AI Exceptionalism":

https://www.magiclasso.co/insights/ai-exceptionalism/

I'd disagree that the article frames that Apple planned this.

But Apple did spend 10+ years pretending that the iPad was the computer of the future, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It also went through a long period where it actively under-invested in the Mac as it thought it could somehow migrate everyone onto iPads, despite protestations from most existing Mac users.

It also took 6 years, from the release of the first Apple silicon Mac, to actually realise that there is no reason that a Mac laptop needs to have a starting price of $999. In this period they had all of the hardware and components that could have easily made a cheaper low-end laptop Mac... as evidenced by the same hardware being sold a lot cheaper when they put it into an iPad.

So at least for the last 5 years, the failure of the iPad and the lack of a cheaper laptop Mac, has all been due to Apple's strategic missteps and biases.

To then release the MacBook Neo without those missteps being acknowledged is fine.

But it's been obvious to anyone with the slightest amount of insight that the iPad is not the future of computing. Apple should have also realised this and corrected course a lot sooner than March 2026.

I am missing the point of Tailwind?

Don't you get the same effect and functionality from simply adding style attributes directly on the elements in HTML?

Why is that approach considered bad practice, while Tailwind, which is effectively the same – but with shortened names – accepted as common practice?

As the article states, at least with Bootstrap you are sharing common behaviour with a single class name that can then be modified globally.

I agree that it says that people are willing to pay more, more often, for a smartphone than they are willing to pay for laptop and desktop computers.

However, how you can then extend this to:

> The market has spoken and they love the locked down, walled garden approach.

The market hasn't been given the opportunity to choose a more open iPhone or a closed, locked-down iPhone.

When the market is presented with both options, at variable prices, we can then determine what, if any, people are willing to pay for one vs the other.

This is great news and hopefully makes SwiftUI more feasible as a long term cross-platform UI option.

What would be great is if Apple started working with and contributing to this toolset.

What would be even better is if Apple then open-sourced all (or at least some) of their SwiftUI implementations.

What would be amazing is the community can then takeover some of the issues in SwiftUI – especially on macOS – and help to make it more flexible, feature-rich and comparable to UI toolkits like AppKit.

A good, cross-platform, Swift-based UI toolkit would go a long way to ensuring increasing and enduring cross-platform Swift usage.

I was going to defend Xcode and say it's not that bad... but then I read the article and realised that I have just become so accustomed to these problems that I don't consciously realise the daily hellfire that I experience.

Even when you think you're immune to it, Stockholm syndrome is real.

A similar article I wrote on the 'Dark Side' of Apple Development, brings up many additional issues:

https://www.magiclasso.co/insights/apple-development/

Interesting idea.

Ideally the 'Never Monetise' site would record and have a non-removable list of any site which had a hyperlink through to it, as a ledger of the sites that have made this commitment.

If they do then change their policy in the future, this would be independent, verifiable proof of a prior commitment.

I've recently written about a similar topic, regarding an app's commitment to privacy and the cost of not selling user data:

https://www.magiclasso.co/insights/cost-of-privacy/

My post asked a similar question -- how much money could we make if we sold user data instead of committing to a privacy-first approach?

I would say that currently for mobile, iOS still monetises a lot better than Android.

Once you've developed your brand and own your own distribution channel however, the best strategy seems to be to distribute via the App Store (which in many countries Apple doesn't give you any other choice) but monetise via your own site. Netflix etc do this and seem to not see much downside.

How well it works for smaller or new apps however is debatable.

I recently wrote about how Apple now has the most hostile developer ecosystem of any major platform:

https://www.magiclasso.co/insights/apple-development/

Good to see VCs and Y Combinator now supporting and pushing for change.

From the reports from Bloomberg etc, yes, it does sound like some Apple AI employees may need rallying.

Though it sounds like what they actually got was fairly in-substantive statements without a clearly articulated AI strategy.

Doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have a promising AI strategy though, if so, it wasn't communicated in this Pep Talk: so what was the point?

Perhaps to look like they are doing something? Are empty words better than no words at all?

It is a 991MB website, before optimisations.

The large majority of this comes from large header images for the Insights post content: https://www.magiclasso.co/insights/

These are png images that are relatively large in size until optimisation creates smaller, multiple image set versions.

I wouldn't say that this is an unusually large site. Any site with a medium amount of content would likely grow to such a size.

I use Jekyll for my company website [1] and managed to get a lot of speed optimisations simply by using a post-processing tool on the statically generated output.

The tool I use is Jampack and I'd highly recommend it: https://jampack.divriots.com

For my product website, it reduced the overall size by 590MB or approximately 59% in size, along with changing the HTML/CSS to make the optimisations that this article notes.

[1] https://www.magiclasso.co/

Yes it may be entirely based upon AI buzz, but there should be no reason that Apple also couldn't have inflated stock due to AI buzz.

For example, I have questioned why Nvidia has been able to be the unchallenged leader in AI graphics cards.

With Apple's silicon knowledge, access to leading edge TSMC fabs and volume purchasing power (due to selling millions of devices) – Apple could and perhaps should be selling unique processors to AI companies, and also using them themselves – taking a huge amount of revenue and mindshare from Nvidia.