The answer seems to have become "yes", so this is a rhetorical question, but ideally _information_ would be apolitical.

We also see the current administration politicizing things like the federal reserve, which has tried VERY hard to be apolitical.

It would make sense, for example, if you wanted to allow editing of the rich text and have the markdown be directly accessible by the user. The conversion of markdown -> attributed strings -> markdown would not produce the same raw text, which is a problem if the user can directly edit or view the markdown. The user hitting cmd-B in the text view to make something bold might end up scrapping some explicit formatting they did to the raw markdown.

I can see why they wouldn't be a priority to keep up. For archival purposes, I'd think everything is still in the internet archive?

Nate seems to try to justify this a touch, saying he personally was looking for a specific article. Kind of a special case there…

The Mac never used WebKit for NSTextField rendering. When iOS was first written, WebKit was used as the text renderer everywhere initially, including in UIKit controls (the “sweet solution”). This proved to be too heavyweight / cumbersome and the coretext/appkit text rendering approach was brought over.

The poster’s issues seem to be specifically because they want to use markdown as the backing. The native rich text backing for native Apple views is attributed strings. They could translate the markdown to attributed strings, but seems like they don’t want to.

A simultaneous total world build is relatively rare (is that needed here?), but it does happen. Sometimes new compiler versions or features need this.

What's the theory on this? It seems to be common conclusion, but I don't understand why AI changes the situation here.

I understand that AI means you can do more with fewer people. Fewer people means less coordination overhead and fewer managers and fewer layers. What I don't get is why you want your managers to be doing IC work more so with AI than before. I don't see why anything changes about needing roughly 1 first line manager for every 6-8 people, or why it would be more beneficial now that the managers have production programming responsibilities.

Both before and after AI it's important that managers have real technical knowledge of the codebase. Having managers do actual production IC work in my experience has been a bad allocation of resources, though, and I don't see why AI changes that.

(a) Someone has to do the management tasks. Why do we think that isn't a full time job anymore?

(b) When managers do production IC work, in my experience it increases the load on ICs in review, because the manager one would _expect_ to not be _as_ expert as pure ICs on the codebase, and yet they are perceived as "senior". ICs then have overhead in having to manage that power imbalance in review. I have known a few extremely productive manager/ICs… but the effect on their teams was not super great. It made the manager into something of a micromanager and the actual ICs lacked autonomy.

A .pkpass file is a zipped directory that has a json file and some assets. There's no need to have a more limited version, a pass is already very limited.

The issue is spoofing. Major event ticketers are unwilling to publish passes if there's nothing to stop someone else from publishing a pass that is indistinguishable from their's and thus is an avenue for fraud.

The difference with events is that an ics file is not something someone's going to try to sell you or that you'd want to buy. But anyway, all Apple would have to do is stop checking the signing.

I think the issue is there's diminishing returns to spending, and in some cases it can be outright negative. For example, one major thing you can do with money is hire more people. Hiring more people than you can handle is a great way to grind everything to a halt. You're basically making a bet when you hire that the additional capacity outweighs the danger of coordination failure.

Perhaps you could invest more money in fabs or something like that. I don't know, I'm a software person. But I did work at apple on software for 15 years, and I do not think throwing more money at software is particularly effective. The biggest teams at apple are often the least functional.

The vast, vast majority of mathematics DOES use infinities. That's the standard perspective. The question is whether there is good, interesting, useful mathematics to be explored by disallowing that concept.

The way I see it, Gödel's, Turing's work and complexity theory come out of this line of thinking about _effective_ computation. This is an argument for exploring the mathematics that arises when you don't think of actual computer math as an imperfect approximation of the real numbers, but rather as a mathematical object in its own right.

I would guess (?) it's more interesting for floating point math and related than for integer math, because for integer math it's already well explored in group theory.