That's disingenuous. It's not about money, it's literally about engineering velocity. The amount of planning and engineering required for an entire interoperability layer that also ensures security and privacy is absolutely going to be something like a year-long engineering effort minimum. You can't speed that up by adding more money.

So it's either try to get an exemption to deliver this feature to Europeans while that work gets done, or wait 12-18 months for the work to be done -- work that isn't required to launch in the rest of the world.

Apple just wants consumers to be happy and be able to use their features. But the EU is requiring a ton of additional interop engineering, so consumers will just have to keep waiting and get features 1 or 2 years after the rest of the world, or never.

It implicitly reframes a debate about immigration, to a debate about ecology/sustainability.

Like I'm not defending it or saying it's honest. But as a marketing jiujitsu move, it's actually impressively creative.

An uninformed comment before you read the article isn't helping anyone.

When most visitors obviously just want to glance at the programs and see what they do, this is horrifically organized.

I'm assuming it's just clarifying this isn't about Macs.

The term "PC" is ambiguous, since it can either refer to all personal computers in its original meaning, or to the IBM PC lineage that is mainly contrasted with Macs. Remember the famous "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads.

When you just say "PC", people today genuinely don't know which meaning you are referring to. And "IBM PC" is antiquated, and "IBM PC clone" is even worse. So "Windows PC" is a pretty decent name.

Do you have a better suggestion? Because "Non-Mac PC" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. If you say "Windows PC", everyone knows what you mean.

And it's not an "anal fixation", there's no need to be gratuitously insulting.

The HTML/CSS is bad that lets it completely overflow the right edge of the page instead of wrapping.

I re-read this post three times in total confusion before I figured out the most important piece was off-screen entirely.

LLM's can actually be exceptionally good at research and pattern recognition, i.e. analysis. And while they aren't great at running numbers themselves, they can do exceptional work passing off Python scripts to an interpreter to generate the numerical results they need.

I'm quite sure the Robinhood AI is going to be trash, i.e. just a gimmick.

But, it's not crazy to think that with the right harness, there are big opportunities for identifying profitable strategies. Especially relying on unparalleled and essentially unlimited research capacity based on public information. More analysis than any single firm could ever hire.

And even for Robinhood users, it's entirely plausible that AI-traded stocks will perform much better than the trades a majority of users would make, since most investors are really unsophisticated.

This is a franchised retailer with over 300 locations, and this is a value of $200,000+ plus so this is way bigger than small claims.

Like I'd definitely agree with you if we were talking about a $5K claim against a single location in small claims. But this seems to be a $200,000+ claim against a corporation in regular court, as far as I can tell.

If it's a corporation, it's pretty straightforward. If they refuse to pay, you get a writ from the court that authorizes seizure of assets.

Usually that means you go their bank and the value of the judgment will be garnished by their bank and given to you.

Occasionally and theatrically, a sheriff will take you to their headquarters to seize property like computers and printers that you can sell at auction until the value is satisfied.

It only becomes difficult if the corporation is bankrupt, which is similar to a poor person who doesn't have the money. Then it becomes a question of prioritization, e.g. do you get paid before or after lenders, and will there be any money left.

But the store closed to get out of paying.

Which makes no sense if the store was corporate-owned. So why isn't the corporation paying?

> They were found liable in court. They closed the store rather than pay.

This doesn't make any sense. If the corporation took control of the franchise, the corporation now owns it and its obligations. They can close the store if they want, but that doesn't do anything about their obligation to pay.

What's missing from this story? Because as presented, it makes no sense.

The same way I make the determination as to whether a linked search result is good and I don't need to click on another search result.

It's not like non-AI webpages are inherently more trustworthy or anything. The internet is full of misinformation everywhere, you know?

So I genuinely don't understand what he is being charged with. What precisely is the "fraud"? The entire point of prediction markets is to get people with better information to participate, i.e. "insiders".

Insider trading with public corporations has tons of specific laws around it to clearly define what is insider information and what isn't. Prediction markets don't have any of that.

And the article does nothing whatsoever to clarify what the heck the actual fraud is supposed to be.

(And I understand this is against Google policy, but that's not what this is about.)