Now, you can get more specific and point out that in a situation where CBS corporate management wants CBS News journalists to report the "news" (which is a journalism product) in a way that the journalists don't, that management is almost certainly "wrong" as a matter of product management.

But the even more specific point is that CBS News isn't viewed as a journalism product by upper management anymore. They were a token to be traded to get the Paramount merger to go through, and Weiss and her staff were brought on to make CBS News more palatable to the regulators, not the consumers.

And the problem isn't abstract. Safari lacks a ton of very useful API implementations. Like, try programming a QMK keyboard on an iPhone: it's literally the only platform in the whole world unable to run the Via web app.

That's literally what a passkey is, that the linked article argues against. It relies on the platform vendor of your device hardware to validate the full stack of software. You can't just do it in a browser because anything that reads the browsers data (or attaches a debugger, or runs the browser in an instrumented VM, etc...) can exfiltrate the key.

That's not fair. To first approximation, most of the progress in human condition of the last, like, forever is implementing solutions that people didn't see value in at the time of creation. Woz built a toy that could barely run software at all. The human genome project was panned as a boondoggle. Penicillin was a mistake.

The first fire pit probably looked like a dangerous stunt to the tribe faced with it, even.

Does that mean everything will come up roses? No. But LLMs only started talking to us for real like three years ago. Let's not just that fast.

Sadly if you flip that around and talk about other public goods like "health care," (almost) everyone walks across the aisle of the same principles and starts arguing in the opposite direction.

Exactly. This is the trap that's befallen Russia and India. A future generation will look around at all the smart and enterprising children of their friends and neighbors doing world-beating research and engineering somewhere else and raising their children in a foreign land, never to return.

Cultural supremacy logic wraps back around like ouroboros. The truth is that we're all better off working together, and has been for thousands of years. The idea of "winners" is an illusion.

That question is maybe kinda begged? I mean, the actual question is "Who discovered the structure of DNA?"

I mean, yes, there are people who push this attribution because of identity reasons. Rejecting it for the same reasons is at least as bad, no?

Which means that the risk to you or I or the general public is low.

But FWIW: it also tends to argue that this is the aftermath of a coordinated, targeted attack against a single high value target (or at most a small set of targets they could hit within the window). The attacker knew they had a gun with only one bullet, and we're just hearing the muzzle report.

You can't get a license for GMS if you want to make money shipping devices that allow users to run unlicensed GMS. You can make all the money you want shipping AOSP devices that don't/can't run GMS. We both agree on that much, right?

That... is pretty spun, especially with regard to the Microsoft comparison upthread to which I responded.

They aren't trying to restrict "other mobile OSs", they're specifically saying GrapheneOS, and in general any AOSP-derived system which is designed to interoperate with the GMS frameworks.

Like, even AOSP alone would be fine, c.f. Fire or Harmony which never got this attention. GrapheneOS is specifically in violation because it includes a feature to suck down and essentially "pirate" an unlicensed copy of the GMS suite, thus making the phone into the practical equivalent of a Pixel.

That is what Google objects to, because they sell GMS as a product and aren't interested in their downstream OEMs "giving it away" for free by bundling a third party product that doesn't license it.

Basically GrapheneOS, as it exists right now, just can't be shipped as a commercial product. There's no license for the magic stuff they claim to support.

Refusal on the part of the government to enforce laws that "would suffice" is clear evidence that the regulatory regime is, in fact, insufficient.

That's why we have regulatory authorities at all, if you think about it. Local district attorneys could be handling a ton of cases about drug testing and environmental damage and air travel safety. But they don't, because that stuff's hard and their job is to put burglars in jail.

Not from the perspective of competition, as I see it. Like, if you want to compete with Apple by using part of its platform for your own stuff, you can't at all. But you can with Google, just not all of it and in all ways.

Point being: this is just another platform flame. People with one kind of phone in their pocket are outraged at the maker of the other thing.

To be That Guy, Apple is not allowing anyone anywhere to sell any devices with anything but MacOS/iOS.

> But this is really end-90s/begin-00s Microsoft levels of anti-competitiveness.

It's not even the most anti-competitive in the market of 2026!