Why should Apple focus on technical excellence when the company and their products are touted for literally gimmicks? In the end this is what brings the money and profits through the door, can't blame a company for providing what the market craves.

Patently false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract

In mono/oligo-poly situations there's no really such a thing as "a really hefty fine". Either the cost will be happily trickled to the very public that are being wronged or the fine is effectively unsurvivably hefty, which noone would levy against a too-big-to-fail entity.

Look at the recent fine for Meta for example. Settling a case against one of the core monopolic drivers for a couple percentage points of early revenue is peanuts. I can't believe the exec suite[-s] are thinking anything else than "which anti-consumer behavior can we buy indulgence for?", they would be stupid not to at these discounted rates.

I'm half joking here, but at this point it feels like the only reasonable way to instill some fear against building Torment Nexus and cyberpunk dystopia would be personal criminal liability of the boards and exec suites that is impossible to settle.

1. That a new player would offer enterprise level product, instead of consumer grade. IMO it's very likely that if such a scenario unfolded, the market would be segmented into enterprise/consumer not only at the product level, but at the supplier level too. At least initially.

2. That AI compute demand is essentially unlimited AND silicon production capacity is and will remain bottleneck in datacenter buildouts. IMO we are much closer to the point where physical infrastructure becomes the apparent bottleneck than it would seem, IF political climate allows. Datacenter buildout is THE talking point in Ohio elections and if the dems win, datacenters will become THE talking point in the whole USofA. In just a couple of months the landscape they are operating in could become very different.

Normally (even with pure type 2!) glucose-ketone levels move in opposition: to put it simply ketone production is activated by low insulin, which is activated by low glucose. Ketone bodies are then consumed instead of glucose or excreted and generally homeostasis ensures that ketone levels do not approach anywhere close to ketoacidosis levels.

In cases where insulin production is broken (Type I diabetes, monogenic diabetes, mody) despite exogenous carbs raising blood glucose levels ketone body production is still active, however in most cases glucose is the preferred energy source, which leads to broken homeostasis of ketones, ketones accumulating and resulting diabetic ketoacidosis.

Type II family is characterized by high insulin. Some call it insufficient insulin, some call it insulin resistance, but the result is that insulin remains high and ketone production low. Regardless if the person is nominally healthy or has insulin resistance, the only way to trigger ketone production is to get insulin low for extended period, which is caused by lack of exogenous glucose. So either ketogenic diet or full-blown fasting.

Advanced and prolonged Type II diabetes (even if treated with insulin) can cause insulin production to drop along with insulin resistance, so the patient could develop Type I-like symptoms and risks, including DKA.

China.

This market situation is a perfect storm for chinese manufacturers to step up. They don't have to chase latest-and-greatest, price-performance is one of the strongest demand drivers in consumer segment. They need a viable alternative, offer it at a reasonable price - which is much easier to achieve under current heavily inflated conditions - and that would quickly entrench them as a household brand.

Remember, it's not that there's no chinese lithography tech at all, it's just not advanced enough to yield mass production silicon at commercially viable prices. It might be the case that at current market conditions this caveat does not hold and all they need to do is ship. Even if the current prices mean they do it at break-even it would still be an enormously massive win.

Again, they don't have to compete at the flagship level from the get go, they need something commercially viable. There are tons of Chinese companies in the west and probably even more western on the outside chinese white-label goods. Chinese government has enough weight to push domestic silicon on those companies to create domestic silicon industry that can make the unit economies work.

All in all, there is a very likely scenario where this current AI boom and the resulting crunch on silicon supply creates a competitive silicon industry in China. If you think something in the realm of "I would not buy chinese silicon even if it was cheaper" it does not matter. Look at smartphone market share outside of USA, Japan and West Europe: in majority of the world Apple+Samsung barely touches 50%. What this "rest of the world" lacks in individual purchasing power it more than makes up for in numbers.

The media to this day portrays China as if it was 80s. Yes, at that time it was an open-air manufacturing plant. You can run rudimentary floor operations with high school educated workers, but you still need trained engineers and managers to run the operations. Exporting engineers quickly became impractical, which led to local engineers getting trained. At some point the training became the bottleneck so local educators were trained. And so on.

Over the years, China has built the entire industrial pipeline: all the way from education and vocational training, to scientific research, to local engineering houses. Remember, the people who built Shenzen are now retired. Or to put it into perspective, China is currently at roughly similar age of industrial boom as post-WWII USA was in... the late 90s - early 00s.

"The West" had a head start with regards to IP and China is indeed fighting an uphill battle there, but they have a huge domestic market to grow the companies out. The proud "Designed in X, made in China" things are being replaced with white-label "made in China", where "designed in China" is implied.

Do you have a robot vacuum? It's probably Roborock / Dreame / Ecovacs, not even some western branding.

In discussions regarding testing and static vs dynamic languages, I like to emphasize the point that with static languages you get some "tests" for free: the compiler enforcing the contract will "test" that you are not passing in string for integer. With e.g. Python if you want to be defensive and on the correctness side, you need to implement poor-man's type restrictions and tests for the unit so it behaves sensibly with call-site being incorrect.

Does it sound cultish to you to insist on static type checks when e.g. writing Python? There's quite tangible value in that.

> Rust cannot prevent incorrect code, nor is this possible (halting problem).

Yes, nothing will prevent analyst/PO from misunderstanding business requirements, nothing will prevent dev from misunderstanding the technical requirements. Or not thinking things through. Errors on this front will always turnaround.

Correctness in this context refers to programmer's and compiler's understanding of code being aligned. Correct code does what it is supposed to do. Rust takes type safety and elevates it to a next level, ensuring reads, writes and object lifetimes are correct.

> 4. No experienced developers

Well, with C you need experienced devs that are also EXPERIENCED IN C. You can write C that compiles but is all kinds of incorrect, usually subtly. Any new language that works with the dev on writing correct code or outright refuses to compile with incorrect code (hinting at Rust here) cracks this egg a bit.

> If you want to target some obscure platform, then likely it's assuming you're using C.

Some (most?) obscure platforms offer a fork of GCC, yes. With LLVM frontend becomes less and less relevant. This particular chicken and an egg is being broken with or without a successor to C.

> Any C alternative will be expected to be on par with C in performance. The problem is that C have practically no checks, so any safety checks put into the competing language will have a runtime cost, which often is unacceptable. This leads to a strategy of only having checks in "safe" mode. Where the "fast" mode is just as "unsafe" as C.

This argument is circular. There are indeed some scenarios where you do absolutely need "macro system for assembly" to do some weird shit, but typically that is a relatively small part of the whole project. Unsafe modes help tackle this small need. The argument reads like needing C-ish language for some little parts of your project requires to use C-ish language for the whole project.

> 3. Programmer productivity

This whole argument is weirdly focused. In my experience, a huge chunk of effort is spent on rework. Any language that improves turnaround rate improves productivity on feature level. The argument again assumes that devs manage to produce correct code without turnarounds (which is rare in practice even with highly experienced devs) and therefore any new language would increase turnarounds. Safety and productivity features are usually designed to increase quality without expertise-floor.

Is it helping you find new music or is it feeding the same thing it has been feeding you in a reinforcement loop? Are you really searching or are you mindlessly taking what's on offer?

> Spotify recommending new music to me or continuing to play music suggestions when my playlist runs out is in no way harmful.

In both Netflix and Spotify any real discovery is quite well hidden, nearly all of the feeds you can get are algorithmically generated for you to consume what is beneficial to them. You get an interface pretending to offer you a choice and an algorithm behind, designed and fine-tuned by behavioral psychologists to get you coming back for more. An apparently it is doing it's job so well that you keep defending it.

Click-to-screen latency is a combination of reporting rate, polling rate and latency within the software stack. Default USB HID polling rate is 125Hz so if you don't do anything extra on top this is what you get anyway. Even higher grade "office" mice offer higher reporting rates than that, "gaming" mice can easily be 1 kHz.

> This would include everything from my Spotify recommending new music that I like to my Netflix showing me similar shows.

Spotify recommending music and Netflix recommending shows that are similar to what? To previously recommended music/shows. This is exactly the problem.

> I'm a responsible adult. I want those things.

This is a clear indicator that these things are addictive and are in fact gambling.

LLMs are trained to produce some form of output that is NOT nothing/dunno. The so called hyperspace collapses onto something, instead of collapsing onto lack of answer tokens.

There have been so many bot armies exposed over the years that one would think every narrative being pushed should be considered to be backed by bots. Some state-level actors even operate their narrative-pushing campaigns openly, yet people still happily deny their entire existence.

HN is very much not an exception to this rule. It's very hard to accept that maybe some thoughts you have were actually installed.

Of course this assumption is fully invalidated by open-access mail service providers: maintaining communication with xXx_kitty_slayer_xXx@tepidmail.com tells absolutely nothing about sincerity and authenticity of messages from DrJohnSmith@tepidmail.com. Not only there's roughly zero correlation, it could be argued that correlation is slightly negative if one does not expect out-of-the-blue contact attempts. Funnily enough, with the critical mass of non-spam migrating to providers, it becomes sort of positive signal, fueling feedback loop: even if the majority of spam came from gmail, messages from gmail would still be more likely to be non-spam than messages from rncrosoft.com, because most non-spam comes from there too.

On top of that, there's a lot of soft-spam. Companies will happily send out critical contract-related information and unwanted-unasked advertising from the very same domain and even the same address. The big providers are not shying away from selling shielding services to spam agencies.

That "someone" could - in theory - require pgpgpg signatures attached to messages and have origin-based filtering/ranking, but good luck convincing people to set up their gmail/outlook to even generate the signature, let alone publish it reliably/revocably. At the receiver end, your only reasonable bet is filtering/ranking the content. It's probably not a strictly uphill battle, but you definitely need significant amount of volume and tagging before your models become good enough and it stops to the case.

In reality, even if it sounds a bit ironic given above, the best route to fixing this is self hosting, especially in the cases where your messages are needed. The more people try to send mail from their self-hosted instances and insisted that it was the problem of the other end to complain to their service providers if they do not receive the messages, the less hegemony the cartel providers would have. And maybe we could have some sort of client auth for email.

In the "old days" beehives were stationary and found certain equilibrium with the rest of the ecosystems. Diminishing honey returns on additional hives placed practical limits on honey farm sizes.

However, these days commercial hives are literally transported all over the place following flowering plants, one hive serves serves a significantly larger area than in the past. The colonies can grow larger and denser, they outcompete other insects and starve them, suppressing numbers and diversity. On top of that they spread diseases while being treated, putting further strain on wild ecosystems.

That's a huge threat. If for whatever reason there was a mass colony collapse event or we simply stopped migratory beekeeping, huge areas would become under pollinated, collapsing food supplies over night.