It could be argued, probably successfully, that this is a case of gross negligence and that Anthropic should be held accountable for harm caused due to their reckless actions.

Especially now that they have been made aware of the possibility, they also cannot claim ignorance of the potential issues.

Certain consumer rights, depending upon the country, also cannot simply be removed or waived due to a organisation's terms of use or implied contract.

What's stopping the LLM from having unscrupulously injected something nefarious into the codebase that you are unaware of?

What's stopping future updates from the LLM from doing the same?

Are you aware of the potential ramifications of deploying thousands of lines of non-human reviewed code to millions of users machines?

Are you happy to be personally responsible for the horrendous outcomes that could occur in these situations?

https://www.magiclasso.co/insights/ai-exceptionalism/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48915378

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48130329

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47883664

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

But Apple did spend 10+ years pretending that the iPad was the computer of the future, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It also went through a long period where it actively under-invested in the Mac as it thought it could somehow migrate everyone onto iPads, despite protestations from most existing Mac users.

It also took 6 years, from the release of the first Apple silicon Mac, to actually realise that there is no reason that a Mac laptop needs to have a starting price of $999. In this period they had all of the hardware and components that could have easily made a cheaper low-end laptop Mac... as evidenced by the same hardware being sold a lot cheaper when they put it into an iPad.

So at least for the last 5 years, the failure of the iPad and the lack of a cheaper laptop Mac, has all been due to Apple's strategic missteps and biases.

To then release the MacBook Neo without those missteps being acknowledged is fine.

But it's been obvious to anyone with the slightest amount of insight that the iPad is not the future of computing. Apple should have also realised this and corrected course a lot sooner than March 2026.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47787182

Points: 9

# Comments: 20

Don't you get the same effect and functionality from simply adding style attributes directly on the elements in HTML?

Why is that approach considered bad practice, while Tailwind, which is effectively the same – but with shortened names – accepted as common practice?

As the article states, at least with Bootstrap you are sharing common behaviour with a single class name that can then be modified globally.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47535708

Points: 666

# Comments: 650

However, how you can then extend this to:

> The market has spoken and they love the locked down, walled garden approach.

The market hasn't been given the opportunity to choose a more open iPhone or a closed, locked-down iPhone.

When the market is presented with both options, at variable prices, we can then determine what, if any, people are willing to pay for one vs the other.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46817252

Points: 2

# Comments: 3

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46771662

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

What would be great is if Apple started working with and contributing to this toolset.

What would be even better is if Apple then open-sourced all (or at least some) of their SwiftUI implementations.

What would be amazing is the community can then takeover some of the issues in SwiftUI – especially on macOS – and help to make it more flexible, feature-rich and comparable to UI toolkits like AppKit.

A good, cross-platform, Swift-based UI toolkit would go a long way to ensuring increasing and enduring cross-platform Swift usage.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45444884

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Even when you think you're immune to it, Stockholm syndrome is real.

A similar article I wrote on the 'Dark Side' of Apple Development, brings up many additional issues:

https://www.magiclasso.co/insights/apple-development/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45121805

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

Ideally the 'Never Monetise' site would record and have a non-removable list of any site which had a hyperlink through to it, as a ledger of the sites that have made this commitment.

If they do then change their policy in the future, this would be independent, verifiable proof of a prior commitment.

I've recently written about a similar topic, regarding an app's commitment to privacy and the cost of not selling user data:

https://www.magiclasso.co/insights/cost-of-privacy/

My post asked a similar question -- how much money could we make if we sold user data instead of committing to a privacy-first approach?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45110132

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45110111

Points: 3

# Comments: 1