I've driven to the wrong location twice because the top search result was an ad. e.g. I searched for "Home Depot" and immediately clicked on the top link (there's only one Home Depot nearby) and after a few mins realized I was headed somewhere else entirely, because they'd injected a tiny subtle ad above their search results.
A few times I have been in the middle of driving, and Google has suddenly said "We have found an alternative route that is two minutes faster - if would like to keep the original route, then tap the cancel button." Which is soliciting people to break the law. And the alternative route is invariably a stupid one.
Truly amazing that it was allowed to cover the map real estate. If it was a dedicated portion of the screen that might show ads, I guess it would be better?
Ditto. They'll use it now while they stand to benefit and in 3 years they'll be lambasting OpenAI publicly for not being private enough with data and pretend that they never had anything to do with them.
The partnership is structured so that Apple can legally defend including language in their marketing that says things like "users’ IP addresses are obscured." These corporations have proven time and time again that we need to read these statements with the worst possible interpretation.
For example, when they say "requests are not stored by OpenAI," I have to wonder how they define "requests," and whether a request not having been stored by OpenAI means that the request data is not accessible or even outright owned by OpenAI. If Apple writes request data to an S3 bucket owned by OpenAI, it's still defensible to say that OpenAI didn't store the request. I'm not saying that's the case; my point is that I don't trust these parties and I don't see a reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The freakiest thing about it is that I probably have no way to prevent this AI integration from being installed on my devices. How could that be the case if there was no profit being extracted from my data? Why would they spend untold amounts on this deal and forcibly install expensive software on my personal devices at no cost to me? The obvious answer is that there is a cost to me, it's just not an immediate debit from my bank account.
> The partnership is structured so that Apple can legally defend including language in their marketing that says things like "users’ IP addresses are obscured." These corporations have proven time and time again that we need to read these statements with the worst possible interpretation.
What's the worst possible interpretation of Apple and CloudFlare's iCloud Private Relay?
I’m not sure I understand the paranoia that Apple is secretly storing your data. Sure they could secretly do so but it doesn’t make any sense. Their whole schtick is privacy. What would Apple benefit from violating what is essentially their core value prop? They’d be one whistleblower away from permanent and irreparable loss of image.
I'm reasonably sure you just described the SEC and the (paraphrasing Matt Levine) "everything is securities fraud"-doctrine. Yes Apple has some wiggle room if they rely on rule-lawyering, but.. I really don't think they can wide-spread ignore the intention of the statements made today.
Some people here somehow thinking they will simultaneously outsmart:
* The CEO of a three trillion dollar company that employs 100,000+ of the best talent you could find around the world, with the best lawyers in the world one phone call away. Also, one of the best performing CEOs in modern times.
AND
* The CEO of the AI company (ok ... non-profit) that pretty much brought up the current wave of AI to existence and who has also spent the best part of its life building and growing 1,000s of startups in SF.
You make it sound like it's merit or competence that landed Cook in that position, and that he somehow has earned the prestige of the position?
I could buy that argument about Jobs. Cook is just a guy with a title. He follows rules and doesn't get fired, but otherwise does everything he can with all the resources at his disposal to make as much money as possible. Given those same constraints and resources, most people with an IQ above 120 would do as well. Apple is an institution unto itself, and you'd have to repeatedly, rapidly, and diabolically corrupt many, many layers of corporate protections to hurt the company intentionally. Instead, what we see is simple complacency and bureaucracy chipping away at any innovative edge that Apple might once have had.
Maintenance and steady piloting is a far different skillset than innovation and creation.
Make no mistake, Cook won the lottery. He knew the right people, worked the right jobs, never screwed up anything big, and was at the right place at the right time to land where he is. Good for him, but let's not pretend he got where he is through preternatural skill or competence.
I know it's a silicon valley trope and all, but the c-class mythos is so patently absurd. Most of the best leaders just do their best to not screw up. Ones that actually bring an unusual amount of value or intellect to the table are rare. Cook is a dime a dozen.
I was with you until your last sentence. By all accounts Cook was one of the world's most effective managers of production and logistics -- a rare talent. He famously streamlined Apple's stock-keeping practices when he was a new hire at Apple. How much he exercises that talent in his day-to-day as CEO is not perfectly clear; it may perhaps have atrophied.
In any case, "dime a dozen" doesn't do him justice -- he was very accomplished, in ways you can't fake, before becoming CEO.
I look at it from a perspective of interchangeability - if you swapped Steve Ballmer in for Cook, nothing much would have changed. Same if you swapped Nadella in for Pichai, or Pichai for Cook. Very few of these men are exceptional; they are ordinary men with exceptional resources at hand. What they can do, what they should do, and what they can get away with, unseen, govern their impact. Leaders that actually impact their institutions are incredibly rare. Our current crop of ship steadying industry captains, with few exceptions, are not towering figures of incredible prowess and paragons of leadership. They're regular guys in extraordinary circumstances. Joe Schmo with an MBA, 120 IQ, and the same level of institutional knowledge and 2 decades of experience at Apple could have done the same as Cook; Apple wouldn't have looked much different than it does now.
There's a tendency to exaggerate the qualities of men in positions like this. There's nothing inherent to their positions requiring greatness or incredible merit. The extraordinary events already happened; their job is to simply not screw it up, and our system is such that you'd have to try really, really hard to have any noticeable impact, let alone actually hurt a company before the institution itself cuts you out. Those lawyers are a significant part of the organism of a modern mega corporation; they're the substrate upon which the algorithm that is a corporation is running. One of the defenses modern corporations employ is to limit the impact any individual in the organization can have, positive or otherwise, and to employ intense scrutiny and certainty of action commensurate with the power of a position.
Throw Cook into an start-up arena against Musk, Gates, Altman, Jobs, Buffet, etc, and he'd get eaten alive. Cook isn't the scrappy, agile, innovative, ruthless start-up CEO. He's the complacent, steady, predictable institutional CEO coasting on the laurels of his betters, shielded from the trials they faced through the sheer inertia of the organization he currently helms.
They're different types of leaders for different phases of the megacorp organism, and it's OK that Cook isn't Jobs 2.0 - that level of wildness and unpredictability that makes those types of leaders their fortunes can also result in the downfall of their companies. Musk acts with more freedom; the variance in behavior results in a variance of fortunes. Apple is more stable because of Cook, but it's not because he's particularly special. Simply steady and sane.
> They're different types of leaders for different phases of the megacorp organism, and it's OK that Cook isn't Jobs 2.0 - that level of wildness and unpredictability that makes those types of leaders their fortunes can also result in the downfall of their companies.
This is absolutely true. But that doesn’t imply that Tim Cook is so unexceptional that anyone with a 120 IQ could do the same job he does. The fact that Steve Jobs himself trusted Cook as his right hand man and successor when Apple probably has literally thousands of employees with at least a 120 IQ should be a sign of that.
Partly because little of this is really a question of intelligence. If you want to talk about it in psychometric terms, based on what I’ve read about the man he also seems to have extraordinarily high trait conscientiousness and extraordinarily low trait neuroticism. The latter of the two actually seems extremely common among corporate executive types—one gets the sense from their weirdly flat and level affect that they are preternaturally unflappable. (Mitt Romney also comes across this way.) I don’t recall where I read this, but I remember reading Jobs being quoted once that Cook was a better negotiator that he was because unlike Jobs, Cook never lost his cool. This isn’t the sign of an unexceptional person, just a person who is exceptional in a much different way than someone like Steve Jobs. And, contrary to what you claim at the top of your comment, someone like Tim Cook is pretty distinguishable from someone like Steve Ballmer in the sense that Ballmer didn’t actually do a good job running Microsoft. I don’t know if that was related to his more exuberant personality—being a weirdly unflappable corporate terminator isn’t the only path to success—but it is a point against these guys being fungible.
> I look at it from a perspective of interchangeability - if you swapped Steve Ballmer in for Cook, nothing much would have changed.
This is quite ridiculous. "Developers x3" Ballmer would have face-planted at Apple. He only coasted so far at Microsoft because Gates had already won the platform war.
> Mostly the `final` keyword serves as a compile-time assertion. The compiler (sometimes linker) is perfectly capable of seeing that a class has no derived classes
That's incorrect. The optimizer has to assume everything escapes the current optimization unit unless explicitly told otherwise. It needs explicit guarantees about the visibility to figure out the extent of the derivations allowed.
Sounds like shorthand terminology in your subfield is okay with the usage of "magnetism." But that's local slang, as a (former) high energy theorist I interpret the phrase "a new form of magnetism" as a new gauge theory or something equally spectacular. So I just rolled my eyes at the headline.
I love the ideas of jj but `jj split` is just an awful workflow. Splitting commits is too important of a feature to get right and jj gets it really wrong.
I initially thought the same but have come around. The problem at this point is the lack of tooling that understands and supports it. You could, quite reasonably, say they should have made a different choice based on what works best with tooling today, and that would be fair; but I think that would leave us in a bit of a local maximum. My hope is that if and as it catches on, tools will grow feature and modes to work with it—just like they did to work with Git’s index.
I haven’t tried jj yet, but from my reading of the article, 80% of the problem is that jj split is backwards for some (most?) uses. You seem to want to split a change such that the newly split piece goes before the part you leave alone, and jj split wants to do the opposite.
Certainly when I split a change up in git or hg, I’m usually trying to break off a piece that goes before the rest. TortoiseHG’s committer works like that — you select the parts to commit, and the rest stays uncommitted in the working copy.
So maybe the only tooling needed to make jj better is a mode (or maybe a default) that reverses the initial guess as to which parts of the change go where.
Might have been a lack of clarity on my part. When you split, you are actually choosing "what goes first". The issue workflow-wise today is primarily a lack of tooling designed to represent this process visually in an easy way.
If I understood correctly, the problem is that the default is that everything “goes first” and you have to remove the hunks you want to go second. As if in a Git tool everything defaulted to “staged” and you had to click “unstage” on what you want to go second, which is the reverse of what they all do.
Except…when you’re actually splitting an existing commit with interactive rebase, don’t Git tools make you unstage changes that should go second? I see how it’s backwards and annoying compared to “git add -p” for a new commit, but they seem equally bad for splitting existing ones.
