The biggest thing that drove iPhones success was that it truly felt different. The interface, the touch screen.

I remember it just feeling so different, it was easy to use no complicated jammed in UI.

It felt like the next generation of mobile UI's was born as it didn't feel clunky like the others.

Given that depending on the Palm you're talking about it had 90 degree angles on the chassis and the iPhone was completely rounded. Not only was it rounded everywhere but it was also Aluminum with a glass screen.

However I can't make any sort of judgement on such a generalised basis

The touch screen was shocking on the Palm and the UI was an absolute mess.

The Palm as it was in 2007 was made of plastic, the screen was resistive touch and also made of plastic. The iPhone was made of aluminum, the screen was capacitive and was made of glass.

The iPhone in your pocket should've felt more like a polished stone than the palm.

Yes Apple has "copied" or brought out its own version of particular products before, usually in a much better state.

The only difference I can see is multiuser support of which Siri works just fine for me controlling the matter devices in the house that are on my partners Apple account. I can't justify buying a product just for multi user support and have another bulky device sitting in the house.

Apple would've been better off putting a FaceID camera in a Homepod mini or Homepod to get the same functionality.

Milk is consumed almost everywhere in copious amounts, if it isn't produced properly it can create significant illness and potentially death in some. Washing machines can also kill when pets get put in them, or children climb themselves into them.

The reason they are regulated is based on decades of safety incidents.

AI hasn't reached that yet, or to the general public. Yes its has potential, but we just don't have the actual incidents occurring to require it.

But I do like his statement of "Let's start today" which I read that as, lets do it before we realised we should've, which is a good thing.

But you still need to build the bounds of what you want and what the expectations are.

If you're going to audit software, you need to know what the expectations were when building the software.

Also, AI Assurance is becoming a large field in where these issues are being addressed and it is being performed by independent people.

Part of this auditing story is that it has also introduced lines of defense, so large companies have line 1, line 2 and line 3, all being different degrees of independence.

Basically this article is simply reminding us that you need independent review and verification and you can't trust the product to verify itself. It's nothing new, you need to review the outputs and the mechanics of everything that is important to the organisation. You must trust but verify all outputs and the tools should be able to provide you with that information AND someone must check it.

Also there are likely a lot of vulnerabilities identified but the work required to fix them vs the complexity to exploit them means they don't get fixed.

I'd wager we don't have an issue with identifying vulnerabilities but the ability to fix them.

I work in security consulting and identifying vulnerabilities isn't the difficult part its actually fixing them and fixing the ones that have valid exploitable attack chains that matter

Furthermore, you need to make sure the model you use is capable enough to review your code comprehensively enough. That includes for both basic vulnerabilities but also attack chain related vulnerabilities.

Is driving a car on your own ok at age 15? why 16 and not 15? Why not 14? It's ok to drink in Australia at 18 age, why not 17, or 16? Legal drinking age in the US is 21, why not 18 like it is in Australia? Why not allow 20 year olds to smoke, not just 21 year olds.

Its because it is the legal age in which we have established people as adults where they're given more liberty as opposed to safety.

There is a balance here, yes kids are smarter than we probably give them credit for. But they're also more vulnerable when it comes to their social circles, as well as addictive habits.

Social media causes issues with us adults, let alone our young kids who also get caught up in the same messes.

You can throw all sorts of arbitrary "perhaps this is why" topics at it to potentially explain why kids have been struggling with their mental health and its decline. Its likely not one thing but a combination of things, of which social media is thought to be the predominant reason.

> not even a meaningful correlation between the amount of time kids are on social media or on smartphones and their mental health

There have been a large number of studies and meta-analysis that show detrimental impacts of short form video content on people in general not just kids. Across their attention spans, their reward centers and also its algorithmic ability to push content to minds who struggle to ignore it, or which creates false anxieties through content which generalises mental health or relationship issues.

You could say this in hindsight for many times in which disasters or engineering issues have occurred.