Sure they can. Perhaps a useful example of something like this would be to consider cryptography. Crypto is ridiculously complex and difficult to do correctly. Most individual developers have no hope of producing good cryptographic code on the same scale and dependability of the big crypto libraries and organizations. At the same time these central libraries and organizations have bugs, mistakes and weaknesses that can and do cause big problems for people. None of that changes the fact that for most developers “rolling your own crypto” is a bad idea.
That’s an excellent example. OpenSSL, by virtue of trying to do everything is the most buggy implementation of TLS generally available today leading to the point where there have been hard forks designed to reduce the scope to limit this damage.
I’d go so far as to say that there are more crypto libraries than there are “default” options for SaaS Git VCS (Gitlab and Github are the mainstay in companies and maybe Azure Devops if you hate your staff- nobody sensible is using bitbucket) but for TLS implementations there’s RustTLS, GnuTLS, BoringSSL, LibreSSL, WolfSSL, NSS, and AWS-LC that come to mind immediately.
So far, all the relevant court cases that have actually been adjudicated have come down on the side of training LLMs to be a sufficiently transformative use of copyrighted material to fall under "fair use". If a case about the GPL were to break the same way, the GPL would still hold, but it would have no hold over this particular use as the GPL can't restrict "fair use" any more than any other set of copyright restrictions can.
The same states that want to regulate 3d printers and force you to register them and install only software that will prevent you from printing anything that even looks like a gun part are also the same states that have been trying (or succeeding) in enforcing those same sorts of broad and dubious regulations on firearms too. When you think of states whose legislatures think collecting and shooting guns is an acceptable hobby, California and New York don’t exactly top the list.
While the American left has largely ceded the term “states rights” to the American right (and was/is well on the way to ceding the term “Free Speech”) they have their own share of “states rights” issues. Medical and recreational marijuana is a “states rights” issue. “Sanctuary cities” are a “states rights” issues. The fact that the Trump administration can’t (yet) force California schools to drop teaching certain things is a “states rights” issue. California deciding they’re goin to just gerrymander the heck out of everything in response to the current administration is a “states rights” issue. In fact basically every state level opposition to the current administration is a form of a “states rights” issue.
It’s immensely frustrating to me that what should be a huge lesson in the importance of limited government power and diffusion of that power across multiple governmental levels isn’t likely to result in that lesson being learned. I have a real fear that in history Trump will have been an inflection point on the road to an ever more powerful federal government in general and executive branch in particular, rather than a historical anomaly at the high end of that same power dynamic.
> This has been ridiculous for a very, very long time. Being less ridiculous isn't worth celebrating.
So what I'm hearing is you don't want Apple to make their computers more repairable? Think of this like training a dog. My dog can open the cabinet in the kitchen on their own, pull out a specific requested item, close the door again and bring the item to me from anywhere in my house. Opening a door is just tugging on something, bringing something to me is just fetch, closing a door is just pushing with its nose. If I went into the training of this with the attitude of "oh wow, you pulled the door open" or "oh wow, you fetched the thing" and didn't reward my dog for doing those simple pieces because "any good dog can tug on a rope or fetch a ball", then my dog would never have gotten to the point of doing all of those things in a repeatable complex sequence that serves a useful purpose. Instead every part of it that my dog got right, they got all sorts of praise and rewards. And so once I started asking more, my dog eagerly tried to do those things because they knew if they did what I wanted, they could get the things they wanted.
Train your companies the same way. Give them the positive PR and praise they're looking for when they do the things you want them to do. You'll get them to do what you want a lot faster if they have an actual incentive to do it.
The guy in the linked video up thread tore the whole computer down in 6 minutes. I'm pretty sure most people can manage to find 12 minutes out of their life every 5 years to replace the battery if they want. But if that is too arduous, you can pay Apple to do it for you for a mere $149, with the battery included in that price. Given that a comparable battery from iFixit will cost you $80-$100, that's just ~$50 to have someone save you the hassle of having to remove 18 screws from your laptop every 5 years.
I mean self repair without renting proprietary equipment, having to soften glue with heat, etc. I used to be able to swap batteries in seconds without tools. Some laptops could do it without shutting down.
I think you are completely misremembering what the Apple product lineup looked like even with the Steve Jobs cleanup. At its absolute simplest, it contained the iMac, iBook, PowerMac and PowerBook lines. Within each line was a "Good", "Better" and "Best" pre-configured model each being a few hundred different from the other and each of those models was further configurable to add additional storage / memory etc.
That level of simplicity lasted from approximately 1999 to 2002 when the 14 inch iBooks, the 17 inch iMacs and the eMacs were introduced, followed by the 12 and 17 inch powerbooks in 2003. By 2005 they had also introduced the Mac Mini. And again most of these had a "good", "better", "best" variant, though in some cases (like the first 17 inch iMacs, the "best" tier was also the next model variant).
Apple's lineup is undeniably more complicated now than it has been in the past, but the simplification was never really about cutting model types down, so much as it was about making distinct model categories that people could easily understand why they would pick one or the other.
I think they still do a relatively good job at retaining that distinction, and I agree that the iPad lineup is probably the most muddled. Though special mention goes to the "Macbook Pro with M4 Pro" branding, which anyone should have caught and thought that maybe they needed a better moniker than "Pro" for the processor variant (and of course also, is the "Pro", the "Max" or the "Ultra" the best?)
I can’t say what the OP finds specifically useful but as an example if you’re aiming to make sure you’ve accurately and clearly documented / explained your intent, the misunderstandings and tangents AIs can go down are useful in the same way that putting your theoretically perfect UI into the hands of real users is also useful. It helps you want places where you assumed knowledge or understanding that someone else might not have.
Building up style guidelines for AI tools has been an eye opening experience in realizing how many stylistic choices we make that aren’t embedded in the linter, and aren’t documented anywhere else either. The resulting files have actually been a really good resource not just for the AI but for new developers on the project too.
Sure they can. Perhaps a useful example of something like this would be to consider cryptography. Crypto is ridiculously complex and difficult to do correctly. Most individual developers have no hope of producing good cryptographic code on the same scale and dependability of the big crypto libraries and organizations. At the same time these central libraries and organizations have bugs, mistakes and weaknesses that can and do cause big problems for people. None of that changes the fact that for most developers “rolling your own crypto” is a bad idea.
reply