t888

TLDR: author bought a phone of eBay that was sold as unlocked, but wasn’t, and doesn’t want to use AT&T.

It’s also worth pointing out that a lot of current “art” is produced under similar constraints to AI art - for commercial purposes and with algorithmic feedback. It’s easy for people to think ‘this is just as good as a human’, when they are only comparing it to soulless corporate art in the first place.

What is that story supposed to mean?

I liked the cinematic synthwave track too - much better than what a lot of human creators do.

But… the fact that it can generate a pleasant electronica tune is essentially meaningless. This is no Miles Davis.

An LLM generated narrative cannot convey the emotions and experiences of the author. Nor can AI generated music.

I guess you don’t understand the feature. This isn’t a VR avatar. It’s a representation used for collaborative apps.

Why would the EC ever stop introducing regulations on what technology can and can’t do?

This is super interesting. Does anyone know of any other web-of-trust style social networks?

No. I’m not talking about enforcement of anti-trust laws as passed by congress. Do some research about Khan’s own theories and you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Choosing not to commission a show on a particular subject, is not censorship.

And Khan is simply wrong in the claim you quoted. In fact it’s absurd. There is no shortage of commentary on both AI, and China. Apple chose not to buy a few shows about these topics from one person - that’s all. The fact that Khan claims this is ‘dangerous’, when you can literally watch any commentary you like including hers on Apple’s platforms shows that she is out of touch with reality.

Your characterization is inaccurate. I don’t think you’ll be able to find a single positive thing I’ve said about Apple, unless you are referring to where I implied that Xcode has improved.

I don’t like dishonest headlines and vague smears, which I see too much of in a site that is meant to be known for curious discussion. Apple isn’t the only victim - I just happen to be noticing it today.

Firstly, while your characterization of Khan is accurate, it’s a huge stretch to call her Apple’s “own” regulator, so yes, I’d say that’s clearly a misrepresentation intended to make what Apple did seem worse than it is - I.e. a lie.

But also, as you point out - it was a normal editorial decision, not censorship. I personally thing it was unwise - I think it would have been better for them to produce the show.

However, we aren’t talking about your interpretation of the article. We basically agree on that.

My comment was that the headline is a lie. I think that’s accurate.

1. Apple didn’t censor anything. 2. Apple didn’t get ‘caught’ doing anything. 3. Khan isn’t Apple’s own regulator.

Even if we agree to disagree on #3. The headline writer knew both 1 and 2 because they read the article. Therefore they lied.

No - it isn’t. It’s a link to random articles unconnected to Apple. Try linking to an actual post.

Also, I know there was pro-Apple sentiment here years ago, but it has changed in recent years.

That isn’t a link to positive discussion about Apple.

Can you find a post where the commentary is positive about Apple as an example?

Headlines lie all the time. Generally nobody denies them because that just gives more for the media to write about.

The straight up lie is that Apple was ‘caught’, or was ‘censoring’ anything. Neither part of that is true. It’s also not true that Lina Kahn is Apple’s ‘own’ regulator. She oversees all trade.

The headline is therefore a lie.

Apple didn’t want to pay for content about her, and asked Stewart, whose show they were paying for not to produce it. Stewart was free to discuss this publicly, and he did. That’s all there is to this. Those are the actual facts.

Saying this is censorship is a lie.

If you haven’t used it recently, you really need to update your view.

Another headline that is a straight up lie.

Lina Kahn isn’t a regulator of Apple. She’s an FTC chair with a specific political goal to break up large corporations. She isn’t a neutral official.

Apple didn’t want to pay to give Lina Kahn time on their platform. I think that was unwise, but it’s also not censorship or coercion.

If she, or Jon Stewart, were censored, we wouldn’t be seeing their conversation here. They have in fact proven that the danger she is claiming to exist, does not exist.

Also, Jon Stewart is far from some kind of neutral interlocutor. He has a particular kind of political axe to grind. Some people love him, and some people hate him, but there is nothing requiring Apple to provide him with a show if they don’t like his approach, any more than any other interviewer. The parts of his show I saw just weren’t very good.

So? You made a claim that you had actually seen “lots and lots” of positive discussions, yourself. That’s not just a question with an implied direction. You claim to have seen the evidence with your own eyes. And yet when asked produce it you immediately began protesting that you didn’t have to.

You can’t produce the evidence, because there isn’t any. You made your claim without regard for evidence, because even a trivial search for Apple related material shows an overwhelmingly negative view of Apple here:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

1. I’m not the one making the claim without evidence. You are.

2. I see absolutely no reason why the null hypothesis should be that a randomly selected social group would be unbiased about any particular issue by default. If you think about it for any length of time you should see that as implausible on its face.

3. You’ve just made up a weird ’counter hypothesis’ of pro Apple bias of your own and thrown it into the discussion for no apparent reason, while claiming not to be willing to defend it. That seems underhanded.

4. Why not just provide some evidence? I’m even more sure you’re wrong now that you’ve chosen to defend your position using these tactics, since it would be trivial for you to provide a link if you actually do remember such a discussion.

I think you’re mistaken. Care to link to a single post where the commentary is positive about Apple?

Have you seen any positive discussion of Apple here?

What are you basing this on?

It’s not an announcement, and the headline is a lie that has nothing to do with Apple.

Apple published an academic paper, as they have been doing for years, showing a model that objectively outperforms GPT-4 on one narrow test. Nowhere do they claim to outperform GPT-4 in general.

Assuming that this is somehow intended to manipulate the stock price is not a rational analysis of what is going on.

Also, Apple has operated on a predicable release schedule for a decade now. They have already said that they will be announcing their AI work at WWDC. It’s unclear what anyone is expecting them to do differently or why it would make any sense.

As for the stock price - the explanations as to why it’s depressed are twofold - one is regulatory action, and the other is frenzied investors who want to jump on the AI bandwagon.

Dropping sales in China is a headline like a stopped clock. Usually wrong, sometimes right, and we only find out which at earnings time.

Note that nobody’s AI product is doing great yet, so for the most part it’s all performative, something that Apple doesn’t engage in.

The problem is that a bunch of companies who hate each other ‘competing’ doesn’t result in platform innovation. It results in stasis. Anyone who has spent any time in industry consortium meetings knows this, and it’s the reason Apple does everything themselves.

The EU should do things the way they want to, of course, but the rest of the world should wait to see what the outcome is. I can’t see anything good coming for consumers, not for smaller developers. A few larger players such as Epic might be able make a bit of money as an alternative middle-man, and a lot more people will stop being able to share their photos with their grandparents because they aren’t using the same app anymore.

It’s a tool the way cigarettes are a tool. Taking responsibility means cutting it out of your life.

Once I finally actually deleted all of the social media apps from my phone, it suddenly became a really pleasant and useful tool again. I have even started to read ebooks again.

Social media is so much the problem.

Meta is, in my opinion, one of the most harmful of all tech companies, and much of the negativity that is directed to tech in general is really just the effect of social media.

That said, pretty much everything the DMA is about is simply picking winners and destroying value. Facebook is already under threat from competing networks, and society is already growing tired of social media dynamics. Apple’s model is under threat from AI, and Meta is determined to compete with them for in AR/XR.

The EC has said they don’t want to be seen as “Idiot Bureaucrats”, but what they are up to in terms of an unelected state body becoming a hands on manager of Tech makes the CCP look laissez-faire.

The DMA makes Brexit suddenly look like a good idea.

What exactly do you mean by ‘opened the floodgates’?

It seems like the thing that changed the dynamic was the ad supported model. Everything else flows from there.

Why is it so important those controls be on a lever? It’s not the only car to put them somewhere else?

Shift lever? Tesla’s don’t have a multi-speed transmission. What are you talking about?

The ‘cause’ of oss? I doubt many people ever were dedicated to a cause outside of GNU diehards. For most other people it was about curiosity or fun, a hobby etc.