I didn't say I wasn't taking Apple's side here. I said I wasn't taking Apple's side as a whole. I don't agree with the level of response from Apple, but I do believe Apple was in the right to expect some kind of assurance from Epic. I think without Epic offering assurances up front, it's reasonable to assume they weren't entirely sincere. That said, Apple could/should have negotiated with Epic. A very rough example would be a penalty clause of some kind. The cost to Epic, if they are sincere, would just be the cost of drafting it up.

First, that isn't relevant to the point of my response. They were saying Epic was making a stand to make the world a better place. They were making a stand, to make more money.

Second, I disagree with that sentiment. Intent behind actions is very much relevant. If Epic is after what is best for them financially, their fight is only going to go as far as what is good for them. In this instance, it's too early to see if they've actually done the right thing. I do agree that the desired end result is good for all.

I'm not taking Apple's side as a whole, but your quote shows that Apple asked why they should trust Epic and Epic didn't actually provide a reason why. If someone already shows they cannot be trusted, them saying "I can be trusted." is not a reason. In Epic's defense, they did say they would be glad to provide Apple with specific assurances. However, why didn't they provide any actual assurances in the response? Literally any at all, and I would be on Epic's side about this bit of it.

Lets be honest. They're making the world a better place for them, and we're potentially benefiting from it.

That is true, but only because I wasn't clear enough. I should have said circumvention of access control, as that is what is actually disallowed. They just often go together now.

The technical difference here, as far as I understand it, is about circumventing Nintendo's DRM for Switch games. While Nintendo does argue that the license for the games does legally prohibit you from running it in an emulator, it doesn't appear to be that strong of a legal argument. Circumvention of copy protection, even for personal backups, isn't allowed under the DMCA. Yuzu was providing documentation, with links to tools, for bypassing the DRM.

That isn't an accurate analogy. This would be closer to them asking you to aim a loaded gun, in a general direction, and then they pull the trigger. Your involvement up until the gun is fired could be be legal, it would depend on the specifics, but after that point is at question.

That is more or less what OpenAI is saying. They're aiming the gun for target practice, and NYT pulled the trigger while someone was down range. OpenAI's defense is that a bug stopped them from preventing NYT from pulling the trigger, but NYT shouldn't have pulled the trigger. NYT's argument is that OpenAI shouldn't have been aiming the gun when someone was down range. Both are valid arguments, and they aren't exclusive.

The article, and project page, mention the legally gray nature of the device as well as the fact that it wasn't intended as a serious solution.

That isn't what is happening here, however. They're compressing a 40hr week into 32hrs.

I would not trust pool water, as the rating is based on fresh water. Chlorine, salt, and other minerals are much harder on the device. That said, even with fresh water there is no guarantee it will not damage the phone.

They're not waterproof, they're water resistant. That resistances is also based upon fresh water. That resistance is also defined by the circumstances, so depth and duration. There is no guarantee damage will not occur. That is why Apple doesn't cover water damage.

I can only say that I had to read it a few times to realize that my initial interpretation may not have been the intent. I doubt that I'm the only one, but I'll fully admit I could be in the minority.

I'm not pro industry on this, but that is an oversimplification to the point of inaccurate. I get that you're not directly saying only poor people pirate. However, It's stated in a way that implies it. It does a disservice to your overall point when put forward like that. Your point about convenience, however, is a much stronger one.

Do you have anything actually worth contributing here? You've done nothing repeat back what I said in different words, pretending it's some kind of counter to what I said, or come up with some half-assed arguments that hold no weight.

No, I didn't... And you're not making any compelling argument against what I said.