So the solution is to start from a place of distrust? If you treat children like they’ve already done something wrong, what reason do they have left to behave? It also seems pretty damaging to their development to teach them that being treated this way be default is good or right.

If it’s a problem, sure, take them away. But not even giving them the chance to show some level of responsibility early, even if it’s likely they might not do it, is both lazy, and developmentally damaging.

There isn’t a ton of content, but Jetlag SLAPS

I’m not sure I see a connection between the working conditions, and the quality of the car. I don’t think anyone is advocating for adopting those bad conditions, but they also seem unrelated to the quality of design, and parts that go into it. That purely seems like a question of paying for good high-quality parts, and not skimping out on the design phase.

Oh it very much is, and I’m in no way advocating for it. I just see this discourse a lot online, and I never see the actual reasons why it’s still in such heavy use talked about anywhere. So yea, that’s the actual why behind their huge marketshare despite their shitty tactics.

You totally can create assets for another platform, but frankly, no one is even close to the level of integration between apps as adobe. Some apps like davinci resolve, and Affinity apps are just now getting to be as good as a standalone adobe app, but there’s still nothing that has the cross-app functionality like Adobe does.

Like for example updating a PSD file, which automatically updates after effects templates it’s used in, which automatically updates premiere projects that use that template, for example. Even just making motion graphics templates for use in a video editor is clunky at best with other apps. Sure you could do it manually, but time is expensive in these industries, every second counts.

To answer your question, or the extension of your question “how to we get creators out of this walled garden”, the answer is not better software, or another alternative. What will really fix this issue is better open source standards for formats. Adobe has the benefit of making their own, while nearly every other platform relies on file standards created decades ago that are too inflexible to support these use cases. Just my two cents.

Yes, creative jobs near universally provide licenses to creative cloud. Aside from companies not hiring people without that experience, the amount of saved assets and templates, along with the deep integration between apps makes the prospect of a full “migration” a ridiculously expensive prospect.

The value in these assets is not just in video files or pictures you can easily migrate to another app. It’s the complex scripts and templates that allow creatives to make custom branded content on the fly. Like a lower third that adjusts styling depending on the name you put in, and auto resizes to fit the text, etc.

That’s what they are saying though. These shouldn’t be thought of as “rules”, they are suggestions near universally designed to point you to the most relevant content. Ignoring them isn’t “stealing something not meant to be captured”, it’s wasting time and resources of your own infra on something very likely to be useless to you.

Server hardware isn’t free. At the end of the day, SOMEONE has to pay the bills. Either you are the customer, or the product. If you insist on being the product, you don’t get to be surprised when platforms focus on the actual customers that actually pay the bills, by enshittifying the platform.

Zigbee devices are a pretty small minority of the larger IoT landscape. Most consumers are likely to have more wifi or bluetooth only devices than zigbee (at this point in time). The notable exception being Hue bulbs.

Apple is pretty much the only company in the smart home space right now that not only allows, but requires that devices be able to function locally, without having to call home. They CAN call home, but they continue to work just fine locally if say, the internet is down. It’s a central tenant of their homekit standard.

There are multiple other browser startups in development that are not Chromium based. Like LadyBird (which is completely independant), and Zen browser (which started as a FF fork)

Well it has to go somewhere, you can’t just take in water forever with nowhere for it to go. So either it’s non-potable water being returned to its source, or it’s closed loop. In either case, it’s not really a problem.

It doesn’t use water in the sense that it is consuming it. It “uses” water in the sense that it is temporarily in a datacenter, gets a little hot, and then leaves the datacenter. I don’t even think a lot of datacenters use actual drinking water, instead taking water directly from a river, warming it slightly, and putting it back in said river.

Not to say I like AI, or think it’s a good thing. But this phrase that’s been going around just bugs me, because it’s really misleading. We should be focused on the ridiculous amount of energy it consumes, not the water it temporarily uses.

The answer to this question is quite simple, because Google (excluding the Pixel line) isn’t making the actual phones, just the software. The actual manufacturers (Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, etc) are taking Google’s OS and putting it on their phones. This case mostly hinges on Googles behavior being monopolistic to them, not to the end consumer.

On the other hand, Apple make both the OS and the Hardware, there’s no manufacturer they’re forcing the app store on, so the same rules don’t apply here.

As far as I’m aware, all donors are public, and have been for quite some time. Anyone can get exact numbers down to the dollar of each contributor a major politician took money from.

Sure, but the difference here was that all those companies were offering something different. Some had better results than others, a better ui, more accuracy in certain niches, etc. But 99% of AI companies now are all effectively reselling the OpenAI API. They aren’t making an effort to differentiate themselves at all. It’s as if Google was the only shop in town, and everyone bought all their search data an algorithms to slap their logo on. That’s just simply not sustainable at anywhere near the scale it is now. This won’t be a 3-5 year decline, it’ll be a 2 month crash.

Autopilot maintains altitude and bearing between waypoints in the sky, and in some (ideal) situations can automatically land the aircraft. In terms of piloting an aircraft, it can handle the middle of the journey entirely autonomously, and even sometimes the end (landing).

Autopilot (the Telsa feature) is not rated to drive the car autonomously, requires constant human supervision, and can automatically disengage at any time. Despite being sold as an “autonomous driver”, it cannot function as one, like autopilot on a plane can. It is clearly using the autopilot feature of an aircraft to imply that the car can pilot itself through at least the middle of the journey without direct supervision (which it can’t). That is misrepresentation.

Investigate it? The dude literally named it “autopilot”, what is there to investigate, they market this explicitly in their advertising.

Because of Google’s limitations (and rightfully so, on Google’s part to limit it). Any app can call the weather API on Android if they want, assuming the user has given them permission, and the app is running. Since Apple doesn’t control the Andriod OS, they have to conform to the rules of any other app on the app store, meaning they are subject to the OS stopping their watch companion app if the user never opens it (and honestly as a daily smartwatch user, no one ever opens the companion app after setup). On iOS, Apple can waive these limitations for select Apps, like their watch app, but on Andriod, they have no such ability.

In short, they can call the weather API, but it’ll only work if the app is running, which by all accounts on Andriod, as a third party app, it shouldn’t be.

EDIT: I’ll also note that having used both platforms (WatchOS and Andriod Watch), Google and Apple have taken fundamentally different approaches to their watches, in a way that makes cross compatibility difficult.

Andriod Watches are fundamentally, an extension of the phone they are running alongside, they primarily exist to give you notifications, and the vast majority of apps are calling home to the phone to have their companion app perform tasks.

Apple Watches on the other hand are fundamentally “their own device”. They receive notifications just like Andriod watches do, but they can also function entirely on their own, they even have cell radios built in. They are essentially, their own small phone, only using the companion phone as a data connection, if you don’t have a sim for the built in radio. This is not really something Andriod is designed to accommodate. They only work well on iOS because Apple can exempt them from a lot of the restrictions third party apps have, they are built in from the OS level, where Andriod watches just aren’t.

No they have so much power because decades of lobbying have made it impossible to get anywhere without traveling on a road in a car— Which uses gas. This is not a problem citizens can feasibly solve, this sort if problem can only be fixed with government intervention.

Perhaps not, but it’s not just the act of making the service worse, it’s doing so measurably to paying customers ONLY when using a competitors product. With those caveats, I think you could at least argue standing. Winning is a whole other battle.