Also I notice it when the LLMs are offline. It feels a bit like when the internet connect fails. You remember the old days of lower productivity.

Of course, there is a lot of junk/silly ways to approach these tools but all tools are just a lever, and need judgement/skill to use them well.

What is being cut is otherwise a symptom of the budget deficit (7%) and the fact that politically they cut areas where there are not republican votes, as politicians obviously try to maintain their voter base as a consideration in their decisions.

Note historically a criticism of the original lunar mission was that USA diverted funds from hospitals and other public programs to fund the mission. So some were bitter despite the triumph.

It goes back to the fundamental conundrum. You have a back of corn. Do you plant the corn, or eat the corn? If AI delivers for America (planting the corn) and USA lands on Mars, these 4k NASA employees will not dwell in the public imagination despite our respect for their commitment, skill and service.

I am writing a hobby app at the moment and I am thinking about its architecture in a new way now. I am making all my model structures comprehensible so that LLMs can see the inside semantics of my app. I merely provide a human friendly GUI over the top to avoid the linear wall-of-text problem you get when you want to do something complex via a chat interface.

We need to meet LLMs in the middle ground to leverage the best of our contributions - traditional code, partially autonomous AI, and crafted UI/UX.

Part of, but not all of, programming is "prompting well". It goes along with understanding the imperative aspects, developing a nose for code smells, and the judgement for good UI/UX.

I find our current times both scary and exciting.

Small investors, and medium investors hate market turbulence for sure. But when you are a billionaire, you can easily profit from short term uncertainty. For example, Chamath recently disclosed a (potentially large) Credit Default Swap position (meaning he makes huge upside if USA debt position deteriorates). But he was the same person deeply concerned about USA long term debt. He is a well connected person to the executive branch.

The reason is that if you are a billionaire (tied to the USA financial system) then you can't escape the system when the entire system falls due to (God forbid) a collapse of the USA financial system in 10 years time. It is like they are the dinosaurs worried about a Meteor strike, but not worried about tigers and snakes (that can't hurt them).

If the president tries to do X, then the lawyers block X, then in political game theory the president "wins" in the eyes of the electorate because the president can argue "my plan was perfect, the execution failed due to the opposition, so I am not accountable to what has now happened".

The left might want to see a disaster play out to capitalize in the mid-term elections, laying the accountability directly on the president. The right might not have freedom of action because they fear a well-funded challenger for their seat.

In am interested in other people's opinions and ideas in this area. I agree it is too little discussed and analyzed. Please share your insights!

In the US system of law, it is based on codified "rules". If you follow the letter of the rules you are fine - no fines.

The system of regulation at play here is the EU digital markets act. These laws are based on the effect of your actions, not the specific actions you undertake.

If the effect of the steps you take produce unacceptable outcomes, you pay fines even if you follow the requirements. The converse applies as well. If you ignore the rules but the outcome is in the spirit of the laws, then no fine.

The idea is to avoid malicious compliance but the cost of this is ambiguity in interpretation and also the market response to your actions might be genuinely surprising.

Here is a technical example to highlight the problem:

Apple were asked that you should allow independent browser technology implementations. They did this (to allow Google's technology to be employed as an example). But due to practical complexity they could not make progressive web apps work on iPhone (since they would need to route through the API which can be provided by Google's browser technology). So to comply with the rules, Apple disabled full screen PWAs and instead allowed them instead the web view area inside a browser, not full screen like a native app is experienced.

The EU regulatory body said revert that, and allow PWAs despite their own rules being then violated (as it would be using only Apple's browser technology) because the effect of allowing PWAs is a competitive marketplace for native app alternatives (web apps).

The political cohort behind the president is roughly in two halves. The first half are the original MAGA crowd (looking out for the working class, pro-liberty, anti-woke, etc.). The second half are the billionaire crowd.

The second group are active on pod casts, on Twitter/X, and are partly represented in government (directly or as advisors). An easy way to follow up on these people is to watch the All In Podcast or their related social media connections.

What these folks have said for a long time is that if USA stay on the same path, the USA goes broke after 10 years. So if you have long term investment in the USA, you lose your fortune in 10+ years.

This is the key motivation for their involvement in the current executive branch of government. This is why the DOGE program is so well supported by them.

If you lose the battle to reduce the 10-year Treasury yield, you lose the billionaires because they stand to make meaningful losses on a 10 year horizon.

I recognize the plight of the common citizen here; they are the plurality. But the big political levers come from these billionaires (absent a grass roots supported leader in the wings).

That’s my read on why the U.S. just paused the global tariff hike to 10%.

From the beginning, I’ve believed the executive branch's real goal was to push down the yield on the 10-year Treasury. Why? Because Uncle Sam has to refinance a mountain of debt this year, and the cost of that depends heavily on Treasury yields — especially the 10-year. That’s the rate that sets the tone for everything from mortgages to corporate borrowing.

So they tried to spook markets. Introduce global tariffs. Stir up uncertainty. And it worked—at first. Yields dipped. Traders moved to Treasuries as a typical flight-to-safety.

But then something flipped.

Instead of being seen as a safe haven, U.S. debt itself started to look shaky. Maybe it was the deficit outlook, maybe the global response to tariffs — but whatever it was, yields started climbing. Fast.

At that point, the strategy backfired. The executive branch had no choice but to walk it back. So they paused the tariffs.

Because when your national budget depends on cheap debt, you can't afford a crisis of confidence in your bonds.

For example, https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapple%2Fsecurity-pcc%20rd..., lists out all references to `rdar` which is a link schema for Apple's bug management system.

Also, it is clear that the code is cross platform (it references iOS and macOS). So the code here gives clues as to the security operation of iOS as well in case you wanted to do iOS security research.

It is lovely to see the middleware here written in Swift. It is quite chunky. Reading all that XPC code gives me the shivers (as I've personal experience with how tricky that can get).

Overall it is a very interesting offering. I wish I had two weeks to burn through the details... [I am the author of The Road to Zero, and iOS Crash Dump Analysis].

That's the kind of thinking that could help Einstein formulate an idea of "spacetime"

Note US GDP looks great until you realise that it is in dollars whose nominal purchasing power is diminishing. There is no better was of seeing this than in the price of housing.

It is "Forming, Storming, Norming, ... " (Tuckman's stages of group development)

Forming = setting up the technical and business solution for DMA

Storming = arguing due to the newly experienced dynamics of power/control

Norming = CEO stepping in the get a resolved balance in what to do next

Phil Schiller would have been the point man on the business solution (you can hear his tone of voice in the News communications and now see his private messaging as released by Sweeney).

The regulator involvement would have gone via the CEO route, who would have had to resolve the conflict with his deputised point man (Phil).

Companies are just collections of people. Maybe they share world view or a values system, but they are still just people. So human psychology is a relevant (and I argue the most significant) factor coming into play here.

If there was a market logic, I think it would be that they'd prefer the alternative marketplace provider be someone like Amazon, and then have Fortnite be an app in that store. So the commercial disputes then are deflected away from Apple/Epic animosity.

The original business case for 3G wireless networking was "Girls-Games-Gambling". The business case for alternative app marketplaces is a similar content argument "Games-Gambling&Crypto-Porn". Maybe this is part of what is keeping Meta/Amazon/Google away. Those folks can swallow a Core Tech Fee (although would be a significant friction point for sure).

I think the fundamental root problem here is EC are trying to lower prices to businesses by attempting to foster competition which might lower prices. But the actual solution is to directly mandate lower prices, and keep the gatekeepers with their current control points and systems. In other words, consider App Store commissions as actual Taxes. And we know from history that "taxes without representation" lead to revolution.