The improved versions where the elements actually transform into each other, sharing the same visual real estate, is so much better.

Wouldn't be the worst takeaway from the article. You should avoid animation for animation's sake in general. Imagine if we animated letters flying up from your phone's keyboard into the text field as you type them for example.

> fix: prevent foo from bar'ing

The whole idea of conventional commit is:

> fix: [problem]

so the correct conventional commit would be:

> fix: foo bar'ing

which is succinct and perfectly fine.

The mistake is assuming this replaces anything instead of becoming just one more piece of the tracking puzzle.

Even if it did "replace" cookies or whatever, it's strictly worse than "before" because it's giving advertising a front seat in the browser. My browser should be doing precisely nothing to help you attribute your ad impressions or whatever. But now Mozilla et al have to waste their time maintaining and augmenting this opaque piece of mathematical faff.

If you do something bad with your tool (knife or LLM), though, that's the problem. And we have laws for that already.

Apropos of nothing, I really don't love the construction of this reassurance. This is not actually a reasoned-through guarantee, it's just two things that happen to be true at the same time. But the latter could change at any point, on-device processing does not preclude the device notifying Apple about what it saw.

On the other hand, as soon as people share those things on the logical platform for sharing videos, they'll be branded with the scarlet letter.

I wonder what Google is thinking - that people won't mind? That it won't matter? That Omni is just marketing and they don't actually want people to use it?

How does the same line of argument not also suggest that stock markets be prohibited?

Imo, generative AI and its derivatives should be completely shunned as image/video encoders. They are simply an inappropriate tool for the job. And I say that as an AIpilled token addict.

It would be like saying hey check out my amazing new text compression algorithm, 97x better than LZMA, then you look at the encoded file and it says "generate a romance story between two characters named Romeo and Juliet"

I'll leave a variant of your argument here for you to mull over, and consider whether the bathroom-breaker here is just as morally bankrupt as the online ad-blocker:

> There is no way to reconcile [over the air TV] where the suckers who cannot figure out [how to leave the room during ad breaks] carry the overhead costs for those who do. It costs money to create the content you consume, it costs money to serve the content you consume. [Broadcast television] is not some magical exemption from standard financial practice going back millennia. The cost is your burden, take it or leave it. But don't take it then do mental gymnastics about why it's not actually something you value while walking away with free,

In the Tailwind thread the other day I was explicitly told that the intended experience of many frameworks is "write-only code" so maybe this is just the way of the future that we have to learn to embrace. Don't worry how it's all hooked up, if it works it works and if it stops working tell the AI to fix it.

It's kind of liberating I guess. I'm not sure if I've reached AI nirvana on accepting this yet, but I do think that moment is close.

I didn't think this 6 months ago but today after what I've seen these models debug and accomplish in established, messy production monoliths, I'm fully convinced even the worst vibe coders are only a year or two away from being able to actually create something from scratch and have it not blow up 50 files in.

So I guess I take the totally opposite stance, today's AI is the worst AI will ever be at coding, and I believe the vested interests behind AI do not plan on making it any worse at this task, so...

The point that continues to be missed is that instead of taking downvotes as validation that people simply failed to comprehend the argument you're making (they didn't), you should take them as a check to reevaluate whether your conclusion is as unambiguous as you believe.