The solution to that problem is easy and well known. Just install any of the privacy-friendly browsers and any of the good blocker add-ons. So what's the real problem here?

It also amazes me that no-one calls them out every time they try that one, because it's an open admission that they don't have confidence in the security of their OS and platform. It shouldn't matter where your apps come from or how hostile they try to be if they're properly jailed and your permissions system works.

Ah, yes, the millions of developers in the world are all evil and trying to eat your babies. No-one just wants to share fun or useful programs any more. Those open sores people especially are known for their greed and a culture of exploiting others for selfish personal gain. And there are no software companies in the world that are trying to make money in any way other than abusing their own customers, which is why no-one will benefit from any hypothetical competition in the market and any potential reduction in costs of delivering software to users.

There is certainly some Schadenfreude here, but I suspect it would be more fun for millions of Apple customers in the EU if it opened up its walled garden as the law requires so all those users could benefit.

My point is that it doesn't have to upset their customers. It can also upset the EU authorities, who are demonstrably willing and able to hand out 10-figure fines. That will definitely affect its bottom line.

For reasons I cannot fathom, Apple seems determined to pick that fight. It's a policy living somewhere between stunning hubris and utter madness.

When is it time to start shorting Apple? Its leadership seem absolutely determined to pick a fight with the entire EU over a predatory business model that the EU leadership clearly has no intention of allowing to continue. There seems little chance Apple wins that fight and even if it gets close it will surely cost astronomical amounts of money one way or another.

Yeah, even golf courses use more water per day than this data center uses per year. Mind, AI is an extravagance and should be penalized as long as it doesn't have a socially useful use case, but that's for a host of reasons beyond water use. Golf courses and growing alfalfa in a desert should be much higher on the chopping block for water use.

But why wouldn't you want to build your business around a company with a track record of shutting down entire services on a whim and innovating in the space of not offering customer support?

But what if I want to use my car when I'm not physically present?!

Oh, wait...

(Someone will be along in a moment to justify restoring the previously near-totally-solved problem of vehicle theft because they want to remotely turn on a seat warmer on a cold morning or something.)

Extinction is also part of evolution. Humans have been demonstrating this by being the Holocene Extinction Event. We can choose to limit the event, but then the shareholders would lose value.

This is an improvement. Every step you take to make it more difficult means fewer people do it. Forcing people to go through hoops means they're more likely to run across stories about how inaccurate LLM output is.

What law exactly is that?

On evidence already heard by the official inquiry it seems all but certain that several senior people at both the Post Office and Fujitsu knew something was badly wrong and continued anyway, which would likely make them guilty of perverting the course of justice at a minimum. The questions that now need answers include exactly which people were involved in both the original inappropriate actions and the subsequent cover-up and the degree of culpability and harm in each case.

Currently, they censor people for sexual content. By refusing to censor Nazis, they are saying they support Nazis more than people who want to post nudes. They prefer genocide over sex.

Communists want to guarantee access to basic resources. Nazis want to kill millions or billions of people.

You: I see no difference.

This is a "water is wet" article. Something that's widely known but needed an actual study to prove, and now other scientists can properly cite it.

Similarly, meta-analyses and introductory summaries tend to be very well cited, even though they're just telling everyone what they already knew.