skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't know what it was but within 0.5 seconds of looking at the first image my brain had a weird feeling of calmed peace.

Very odd.
Fines should exceed all revenue derived from illegal activity, not just profit.
My understanding is that British intelligence intercepted the private chat:

> "The message he sent to friends, before boarding the plane, went on to be picked up by UK security services."

> In the judge's resolution, cited by the Europa Press news agency, it was said that the message, "for unknown reasons, was captured by the security mechanisms of England when the plane was flying over French airspace".

> A spokesperson for Snapchat said the social media platform would not "comment on what's happened in this individual case".

This is similar to what I've read in other media.

If anything, by bringing this to trial they advertised to the world that this has been happening. Can't eat your cake and have it, too.
Due to some GREAT legislation

"
In 2017, then-President, Donald Trump, signed the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs act, which overhauled tax codes and reduced tax – for example, it reduced the top tax bracket from 39.6% to 37%. To make the bill pass strict budgetary rules, the Senate used a process called reconciliation: adding in tax code changes that delayed tax increases. These delayed increases “balanced out” the tax reduction.

One of these changes was Section 174, set to come into effect 5 years later, in 2022. These parts deliver the blow by making it clear that software development costs need to be amortized over 5-15 years. Most experts expected Congress to push back the Section 174 amendment to a later date, or simply remove it. But Congressional negotiations to repeal the changes fell apart at the last minute in December 2022, meaning it became law.
"
Living in the Metacrisis with Jonathan Rowson [video]
> This is a film by Katie Teague, featuring Perspectiva Co-founder and CEO Jonathan Rowson, exploring what it means to live in the time of the metacrisis.
Currently the only requirement to join an app store is to have a valid payment mean in the store country (including gift card I think?)

Most people I know juggle multiple store accounts (one in each country) and switch the app store account when they need new apps only available on the other side.
Apple stated "App Store revenue generated $1.1 trillion in developer billings and sales in 2022, 90% of which was commission-free." [1]

10% was not commission-free. App Store commissions are between 15% and 30% depending on the size of the developer. That would be between $165B and $330B revenue for Apple from commissions.

Nobody knows how profitable the App Store is to Apple. "It’s a question that investors would love to know the answer to, because it addresses the entire business model of the App Store. Apple does not disclose any detailed financial results of the App Store,". "Barnes calculated that the App Store had hefty profit margins, which increased to 78% in 2019, up from 75% in 2018" [2]

App Store revenue is still growing (not least with inflation) so the number of 2023 was likely even higher.

~80% margin on $165-$330B revenue in 2022 would be $132-$264B. So my original number of $100B may actually have been on the low side.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/31/apple-touts-1-1-trillion-i...

[2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-profitable-is-apples-a...
It's not just temporary or throw away code. People are quick to use the term "technical debt" to describe code that's janky but doesn't actually cause any issues or have much reason to change. If your janky code that "needs cleanup" sits at the bottom of your todo list for 8 years without needing to be touched, and meanwhile its been fulfilling its purpose the whole time, then it's not really "debt". It's a golden goose with an ugly face.

Even if jank today means future changes are more expensive, if those changes are in service to growth, that just means that in the future, you'll need a capital investment if you want to grow, which is normal. It's not the same thing as debt today. You could choose to not target that growth avenue and never incur that cost.

It's pretty normal to have to buy a completely a new machine to support new use-cases in the physical world, and owning an older machine doesn't make that any cheaper, and physical machines require actual ongoing costs to not literally fall apart on their own. Even software that's full of "debt" usually gives you something cheaper than having to repay the entire capital investment on a new program. If it didn't, you'd just rewrite software from scratch every time you needed something new. And software does not in fact rot over time. If you don't touch it, it generally does the exact same thing today as it did yesterday, last week, and last year. If you're happy with that, you can just leave it alone indefinitely. Web 1.0 sites continue to work just as well today as they did 20 years ago, except with much faster computers to process them.

Basically, the analogy has always been pretty bad.
Of course if the EU don't like it and it turns out to be legal, the EU can charge the law...albeit with a delay
There's a store selling swag (A hat and a floppy with the source to the site - coming soon!?)
We Asked A.I. To Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image
I didn't realize that the fee was for apps and not app stores.
The same way they can take a percentage of any completely external purchase "initiated" via an iOS app. It's literal racketeering and the courts are ok with that.
The intermediate Value Theorem, in existential form:

A single one of my brain cells is not me,

but all of my brain cells is me.

Somewhere between these two endpoints there is a line where me has to begin, and not me ends.
As if that cost wasn't included in the $1500 phone?
annnnd even then, apple still gets to review and reject your app before you can list on an alternate app store.

> Notarization for iOS apps — a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused on platform integrity and protecting users. Notarization involves a combination of automated checks and human review.
Given that I have not paid for Windows in almost 2 decades, I am okay with a little bit of advertising.

All of my Windows PCs just work. And I can stick pretty much any hardware and they just work.

I can't say the say for any of the Apple devices that my friends own, all of whom have had to have them replaced at some point.
The Difference Between Speed and Velocity
I'm a huge fan of Ollama. Really like how easy it makes local LLM + neovim https://github.com/David-Kunz/gen.nvim
Your comment makes me wonder...what is HN's spam volume?

I never see any.
Yeah this has been going on a for a long time with that specific airplane.
But what about all the others.

I watched a recording of President Biden arriving in somewhere in
eastern US by helicopter.

I was surprised to see at least 4 V22 Osprey used as part of the massive
protection detail.

Given their tendency to crash, I figured it would not be considered safe
around Potus.

But at least 2 POTUS have been transported in one during specific trips
usually to war zones or at least places the US has military amred conflicts.

I was surprised by that as well.
> This is misreading [...] The free apps within the store are subject to the threshold

This is a distinction without a difference. Paying Apple millions per year to merely allow users to download apps that make no revenue from third parties is ridiculous no matter who's paying. And not that it matters, but when I wrote the part you quoted the "they" was actually intended to refer to the app developer; rereading it I agree that my phrasing did not convey that.

> the IP fee, not being optional. Which makes sense because all apps use Apple’s frameworks and other IP

Only under coercion. The fee is not reasonable, and I guarantee that if it developers were allowed to avoid the Core Technology fee by not using Apple's frameworks and IP then we would very quickly see alternative frameworks spring up and soon a majority of apps in third party stores would choose them. In fact a lot of apps are already mostly web based, and I'm sure would prefer to use a Chromium based engine if they could, so already today the "benefit" they get from Apple's IP is minimal if not net negative, considering Apple's underinvestment in web tech. Apps built on Unity or other game engines also fall into this category, so, a large majority of the App Store's biggest moneymaking category.

> The hardware cost is an argument that always makes me chuckle [...] why not throw in the cost of electricity and an internet connection?

Electricity? Seriously? Now you're making me chuckle. If you can't tell the difference between a product like the Mac that only one company in the world is allowed to make and a commodity like electricity, I think you should consider that you may be subject to the reality distortion field.
Consistent styles will converge toward oatmeal with enough samples.

The contradiction present in modernism is not resolved with parametricism. And switching from endless variety of boxes, separation, and repetition to folds, blobs, and swarms doesn't resolve the contradiction either. It replaces one pattern language with another.

I'd love to live in a world with a thousand pattern languages instead.
If I publicly attest to something, and provide cryptographic proof that you can verify the version you are looking at is the one that I attest to, then I do not see how that is meaningfully a derivative work of what we are attesting. It is not substantial enough in size or form for it to be a derivative work. So, from that end, it seems we agree that the signature itself is not a problem.

Now, it seems what you are implying is that they need a new signature that must be created at build time. I'm asking for a much more restrictive bootloader that would have to be buildable with a repeatable process so that someone else can create the same one down to the bit level. Is this as useful as one that is not as restricted? No, but it would be a way past the legal problem?
I said how I want them to work, not what is beneficial to society. Societal benefit is hard to balance and define. Don't assume what you want is automatically better for society as a whole.
Many times.

Gotta love people so brainwashed they can’t imagine government interfering with big tech

https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eus-vestager-wa...
Also ubiquitous in Eve Online since about 15 years ago. Did it originate in Elite Dangerous?
> It seems like with Apple, you're just paying for a lot of nothing.

These days Microsoft screws their users hard in terms of stealing every scrap of personal data they can from people's devices and shoving ads and unwanted software down their throats. An Apple computer might be highly overpriced, under-powered, and restrictive, but Apple isn't the privacy nightmare that Microsoft is and while Macs aren't perfect when it comes to privacy protections I can't fault people for seeing value in their privacy and being willing to pay for it.

That said, most apple users are overpaying for a status symbol and/or an identity rather than strictly for the privacy benefits and for tech savvy users with privacy concerns a PC with linux is the way to go since it's even better at protecting their data and doesn't come with Apple's restrictions on what you can/can't do with your own computer.
hi, I also read this website and sometimes comment on it. after I read your comment, I ran the query “apple usb-c eu commissioner warning” through an internet search engine, and I found this article – https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/04/eu-warns-apple-about-li...

> It was rumored in February that Apple may be planning to limit charging speeds and other functionality of USB-C cables that are not certified under its "Made for iPhone" program. […] In response to this rumor, European Commissioner Thierry Breton has sent Apple a letter warning the company that limiting the functionality of USB-C cables would not be permitted and would prevent iPhones from being sold in the EU when the law goes into effect.

I would posit that a commenter with a sincere wish to dispel “conspiracy theories” might instead take a moment to do that search themselves instead of posting this (pardon me) inflammatory remark!
It seems there's some contradicting information. The main page linked by this very thread says "and/or":

"Developers operating under the new business terms will have the option to distribute their iOS apps from the App Store and/or alternative app marketplaces."

I believe this is relevant section of the agreement addendum:

>5.5. Application Transfers - Once You agree to this Addendum, Your Applications cannot be transferred to an Apple Developer Program membership that has not signed this Addendum.

https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alterna...

So, it does look like it's one or the other.
> During USB-C debates, Apple reportedly tried to circumvent EU regulation

Given that Apple had already been shipping standard USB C ports with zero restrictions starting with the 2021 iPad Pro, this conspiracy theory made no sense.
Depends on the codebase perhaps. I sometimes touch parts which are not directly relevant to the the task e.g. mostly a minor reactor, a minor bug fix etc. It's nice to leave a trail on that particular change that it was just a refactor instead of exploring whole changeset only to find out that this change was irrelevant.
The EU has a haphazard record on technical regulation, but their requirement for alternative app stores is decent IMO.

Apple and Google have a chequered history of cherry-picking which social networking apps are allowed on their platform, based on content in those apps.

Some apps may, for cultural reasons, have the lion's share of toxic content, such is the nature of a free society where cultures are allowed to differ. But users should be free to decide what apps they consider "toxic," because peoples' definitions of "toxic" differ.

Free speech is a first amendment right because it's a fundamental pre-requisite of a free society.

Why should two corporates in California (subject to all the political biases that exist in that state) be gatekeepers of freedom of expression and association for the rest of the world?

If a corporate chooses what opinions and discussions are "appropriate" for us, then our thoughts and worldviews are subtly shaped by the whims of that corporate.

It wouldn't be so bad if there were multiple corporates who differentiated their approach, but unfortunately we've seen Big Tech acting in concert on certain issues (certain apps that were banned), and that should concern us all.

They may suppress rightwing views today, but we can't predict what Big Tech will deny us access to tomorrow. Tomorrow's target might be something we value (but is inconvenient for the Big Tech establishment)

If you're on the left-hand side of politics, try to imagine a world where two companies in Wyoming controlled your access to information and discussion. And an app was banned if it was seen to be too leftwing... too "risky" and "disruptive" to "public order?"

I understand Apple's arguments about the integrity of its ecosystem, and for what it's worth, I value Apple's vertically-integrated and curated approach. But I lost a lot of faith in Apple when they started cherry-picking social networks. Now I recognise that users need a side-channel so they can choose to sacrifice a degree of safety in order to retain access to free speech.

Reading Apple's announcement doesn't fill me with confidence though. "Authorization for marketplace developers — to ensure marketplace developers commit to ongoing requirements that help protect users and developers."

Inevitably, this means that if a developer dares to build a marketplace that hosts a free speech app, Apple can simply refuse to allow the marketplace to run on their phones.

Big Tech will not relinquish control without a fight.
Apple financial statements are public. We know the income from hardware sales exceeds all costs and R&D by far. The app store fees are basically stealing from society on top of that to enrich themselves.
I would love to know how often this happens.

I think I saw a similar trajectory where a small startup in New Zealand with a working product was accepted into YC: then the product needed a complete rethink for the US market and it quietly died.

Very difficult to discern cause and effect.
It is great when there is a standard that works well for everyone.

It is great when there is competition to that bloated monopoly everyone currently uses.

I don't understand my own cognitive dissonance on this topic.
I don't think they take security any less seriously than most social networks. If you're worried the sending/receiving servers have access to the email address, then it seems you would have to be equally concerned account recovery via email considering most email is not encrypted.
idiomatic Common Lisp ?
If you already have an international version, why would you prevent EU users from installing it?

If you don't have an international audience, it wouldn't make sense to build two visions. But I imagine many apps want to target users outside the EU.
Rust indeed does have an embarrassing excess of diversity problem, made worse by the fact that async isn't in the standard library (outside bare minimum stuff like Future) and async libraries can't really be async runtime neutral. (This is going to improve with async traits.)

It's probably an inevitable result of Rust having a thinner standard library than Go, Java, C#, or other heavier languages. It's supposed to be systems language after all.

Another reason though is that Rust is a rich language with a very powerful type system, and rich powerful languages invite programmers to show off. One of the greatest things about Go is how boring it is. It doesn't give you a lot of room to show off by writing clever code, so instead you have to show off by making a great application. But some of this is unavoidable if you want what Rust delivers: a near-zero-overhead systems language with hard safety and automatic memory management without GC. That's dumping a heavy load on the type system, and Rust does deliver pretty well.

I try to exercise discipline when writing Rust and not show off by being more clever than I need to be. I do write some hand-whittled performance code here and there in high-performance applications, but I try really hard to avoid using unsafe. I've found that you usually can.
This happened to be when I started out because the grounds I used were too fine. Try a more coarsely ground coffee; it will allow the water to pass through faster and will be less bitter.
I think a lot of really smart people end up claiming something like "this whole system wasn't designed properly, we can do it way cleaner if we redesign it from the ground up" but it's always a trap. Incremental improvements take less time, can be more easily understood, are safer to deploy. But a lot of those really smart people have perfectionistic tendencies that cloud their judgement, and nobody can imagine all the different paper cuts that will get in the way of their beautiful vision. And thus, the new technical debt (to someone else) is written
A quick video on the Tie Fighter Total Conversion project, to supplement the above post :

10 Differences Between the TIE Fighter Total Conversion and TIE Fighter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvCXTTtELy8
I guess technically Larian and GGG are "smaller" than even Activision-Blizzard before the buyout, but they aren't "small" either any more. (And GGG has been mostly owned by Tencent for a few years now.)

Path of Exile 1 is a glorious mess that anyone remotely interested in the genre should try (don't give up in the first act like most players, it gets way better), but currently at least with quite ridiculously bad performance, which is particularly aggravated by it being an online-only game of which you cannot play the old DX9 32-bit version any more, which had at least an order of magnitude smaller hardware requirements.

(And you aren't indie if you release on Steam (especially only !) like Palworld. (Or if you rely on a subscription-based platform like Unity, like [insert "indie" X].))
Apple shared the details of valid.apple.com in a WWDC talk: https://devstreaming-cdn.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2017/701jvytn...

Slides: https://devstreaming-cdn.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2017/701jvytn...

You can also find the client-side code if you dig around under https://opensource.apple.com/source/Security/

It aims to cover all certificates, similar to Mozilla's CRLite.
What should happen during a squash/rebase is that the semantic meaning of commits should be revised for maximum legibility of a future maintainer.

If you did one "thing" on a PR branch, and it took you 10 commits to do it, those 10 should be squashed to one, and the commit message should be "Added thing."

If you did 3 "things" on a PR branch, and it took you 10 commits, you should squash those 10 into 3 semantically meaningful commits: "Added Thing#1" "Added Thing#2" "Added Thing#3" This is doubly true if you ran into some complexity during the implementation that caused you to have to do the extra stuff -- that's exactly the type of detail someone looking back on commits needs to understand the development history.

This is something that you are not allowed to do under most squash-merge policies, because "1 PR == 1 commit" for maximum legibility.

Of course, nobody ever takes the time to do any of this which is how we ended up with such policies in the first place.
you obviously haven't seen Mr. Robot.
Do not form a C Corp unless someone is writing you a 6+ figure check to do so.
Lots of folks taking this approach and feels like the wrong entry point, e.g., similar to asking LLMs to generate bytecode when compilers exist or 3d printing a machine vs. building a machine from 3d printed components.

1. Business users aren’t prepared to talk to their data in meaningful ways and this is an opportunity for LLMs to enhance the way users ask questions.

2. SQL modeling languages exist (although I’m not sure there are well maintained open source good ones and this is the biggest obstacle to what I’m working on now) and LLMs can extend these effectively by adding components such as dimensions, metrics, relationships, filters, etc. with less chance of hallucination

3. Deterministic SQL generation from a modeling repository is easier to troubleshoot and provide guarantees than end-to-end generation.

4. Existing SQL can be parsed to generate modeling components that can be committed to the model repository with LLM assistance

5. Much of the richness of going to data to answer questions is context, e.g., how does this dept compare to others, this month to same month last year, etc. Modeling languages are good at expressing these transformations, but business users and often analysts aren’t good at capturing all the permutations of these types of comparisons. Another area where LLMs can help apply tooling.

IMO, LLMs are more effective at using tools than generating complex outputs.
Safe Manual Memory Management with Coeffects
In this post I talk about Crary et al.'s Calculus of Capabilities, how it can be used for safe manual memory management without requiring values be used linearly in any way, and why I chose it for SaberVM.
> vertically center
‘git log —-no-merges’
That's now, at some point at in the past their lawyers probably said It's all going to be fine, put the sensor and make it a main feature of the product.
The film has been played on endless repeat, with "original sound", since the 1970s, at Disneyland's Main Street Cinema. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Street_Cinema

It would be interesting to see if anyone has made remarks on the sound quality and whether the flutter has been noticeable over the past 50+ years.