Not so. Training requires huge amounts of data to produce a model, but the resulting models can be tailored from large to small, with diminishing returns the larger you get. Some perfectly capable, not state-of-the-art LLMs (e.g. DLite) only need a few hundred MBs to exhibit ChatGPT-like behavior that would be sufficient for narrowly-focused tasks. I could easily imagine a lightweight AI model being used to make pretty much any of Apple’s existing AI tools (e.g autocorrect, on-device object identification/indexing in the photo library, speech transcription) better.

It’s also worth mentioning that Slashdot reported a few weeks ago that Apple researchers published a paper indicating they had a fairly large breakthrough that would enable significantly better performance from models that can run on-device. So, this isn’t something they might do one day: it’s something they’ve already confirmed they have working.

It actually isn’t as crazy as you think. In much the same way that there’s dedicated silicon in most CPUs for video encoding or encryption, Apple’s SoCs—both the M- and A-series—have for years been including dedicated chips for AI, tailored to their models. Hitting a general purpose CPU with an LLM is slow and power hungry, as you suggest, but these dedicated chips can do it far more efficiently, especially if the model they’re using is a lightweight (read: less capable, more focused) model tailored for mobile use.

This is absurd and patently false. They give you a paltry 5 GB of free iCloud storage, so right away we know they aren’t backing up “everything” by default. More importantly, iCloud Backup, the feature you’re talking about, is disabled by default. You’re prompted to enable it during initial setup, but you can easily choose not to, just like with Siri and the rest of their opt-in features.

And their features that share data with Apple are opt-in, not opt-out like you’re claiming. They have a specific sharing screen with a specific sharing icon whenever you’re prompted to opt-in to a feature that will share any data with Apple. Simply say no. You can even skip setting up an Apple ID if you want.

I’d challenge you to name a single feature that shares user data with Apple that is enabled by default on a brand new iPhone.

That said, I agree that their privacy focus is a convenient way for them to spin a weakness as a strength. Apple tried to get into social networks (e.g. anyone remember iTunes Ping?) and failed. Likewise in most of these other areas where their competitors have strength. Having failed to break into those fields, they finally realized they could spin their inability to collect data en masse as a strength while leveraging the trust that lever builds by asking people to share their data anyway. People buy it and share the data.

The "workaround" is that they eventually bi-licensed the iOS version under more permissive terms, meaning GPLv2 wasn't in play at all.

You'd need to bundle that law with a law that would make the tickets refundable until a certain point too close to the event.

It's legitimate, in my mind, to resell tickets for some event you wanted to go to but now cannot because life circumstances got in the way. It's less legitimate to scrape a website, buy a zillion tickets, and resell them at a huge markup.

Economic populism is more in vogue on both the left and right today than it was in the 90s.

Ban TicketMaster/Live Nation from the lucrative resale market and watch how quickly they conjure up an effective solution to solve the problem of bots snatching up all the tickets.

We purchased tickets for Alanis Morissette's tour this summer, within 60 seconds of sales opening, and magically all the first sale tickets were gone and we had to go to the resale market. From nosebleed to "if you have to ask, you can't afford it", literally, every single seat in a ~20k person arena sold within a minute? Who knew she was still that popular....

TM gets to collect their bullshit fees on every single sale, so what incentive do they have to do a damn thing about bots?

GPLv2 licensed code is not allowed in the Apple App Store to begin with, so while that may be true, it doesn’t matter here.

GPLv2 contains a right to “make a copy for your neighbor” that is fundamentally incompatible with any app stores that employ DRM (hence why VLC was removed from the App Store over a decade ago). As such, the only part of his license that would still be relevant is the part where he says:

Suffice to say, whether under the GPLv2 or the developer’s more expansive terms, the knock-off didn’t have a valid license under which to distribute the app via the App Store.

In this case, the “The company said it sent the alerts...at 12pm Pacific Time Wednesday” would be a pretty good indication that if you received a notice from “Apple” at that exact moment that it’s probably legitimate. I agree that your advice/question is valid in general, but these users have confirmation.

Also, there was no call to action, other than to be aware and be careful, so there’s no risk of phishing, which is a hallmark of legitimate messages.

The very first episode of Star Trek I ever saw was Duet. Have you seen it? It was Season One and by the end of the episode we're pretty far removed from "Terrorist Kira." It did not take seven years for her to view the Cardassians as people or to think that a political solution was possible.

That's the first thing I noticed in TFA. 'engineers will be needed to operate...'.

It's now sop to hire engineers to operate equipment? That used to be the role of technicians. A different strata.

The case revolves around subscribers who received repeated notices but they allegedly never stopped their infringements and cox never disconnected them. This was a problem because the DMCA has language about repeat infringement, strikes, and removal/disconnection but doesn't specify what qualifies as infringement or how many strikes is too many.

The jury seemed to decide that accusations qualify as infringement, and whatever number of strikes was considered "reasonable" was largely ignored since cox allegedly didn't ever disconnect anyone and maybe wasn't even tallying how many "strikes" individual subscribers received.

To my understanding cox was following the law regarding passing on strikes/warnings to subscribers, but as the alleged infringement was temporal in nature there's nothing to takedown. It does seem that the courts just passed interpreting the extremely poorly written law onto a jury which might be the only group of people less qualified than the congresscritters who wrote it.

There's nothing in any canon I can recall that would imply that. I do recall household fusion reactors and replicators (TNG's The Survivors) which is pretty much the opposite definition of central control by the State, unless we assume the replicator has DRM or some such, which was never said or implied. There's also civilian ownership of weaponry in every show, again, opposite of central control. There are privately owned ships, privately owned restaurants, privately owned French estates, the only thing missing is currency, but what good is currency in an abundance economy?

Did you watch the same show I did? That might have made for a compelling story. The story we actually got was about a cartoon villain from a literal universe of cartoon villains. That twist ruined what was up until that point a fairly compelling character story acted brilliantly by Jason Issacs. Discovery has done this time and time again, take a concept from Classic Trek best used sparingly (Section 31) or not taken seriously (tMirror Universe) and drive it into the ground.

That's nonsense but I'm not surprised you worship at the altar of DS9 because it feels like all DS9 worshippers have to throw this shade at the other shows. You don't see any character evolution between S1 Data, Worf, or Picard vs. S7? S1 Doctor vs. S4? S4 Seven of Nine vs. S7? There were certainly characters (Harry Kim) the writers forgot about but it's nonsense to say they stayed the same as they always were. Side note: I like DS9, a lot actually, so don't mistake this as a condemnation of that show, just the more rabid parts of its fan base.

Episodic television is not mutually exclusive with character development and serialized television is not automatically superior. I would posit that it only works when the show runners actually have the whole story sketched out in advance, e.g., Babylon 5. How many B5 episodes ended on a cliffhanger? I can recall only one. How many Game of Thrones episodes ended in cliffhangers? I can't recall any. Those shows (well, GoT until they outran the source material) are how you do serialization, a novel for television, not what Discovery and Picard pull on us. Discovery and Picard take story ideas that could be told in a two hour movie or three episode television arc and try to stretch them out for 10 hours. They do it with cheap tricks, like cliffhangers (invariably resolved in the opening act of the next episode), twists to drive engagement on social media (OMG, Lorca is from the mirror universe!), manufactured interpersonal conflict on a soap opera level (what happened to the professionalism in Starfleet?), blah, blah, blah, all there just to pad the run time and keep the rubes subscribing.

This isn't uniquely a Star Trek problem. It has happened to a lot of other productions. I blame Netflix, or rather, Hollywood's reaction to Netflix. Everyone rushed to copy that production model without asking themselves if there was still room for traditional TV (e.g., Strange New Worlds) or (crazy idea) new concepts.

Blood isn't the problem my friend. It's the gore, torture, and violence for the sake of shock value that ruined Discovery and Picard for me. Something else you said:

You don't need gore porn to tell a story about the horrors of war. If you think you do you've probably never seen the horrors of war. The two Star Trek episodes that most effect my partner -- who actually served in the GWoT and came back with the TBI and PTSD to prove it -- are Chain of Command and It's Only a Paper Moon.

Communism implies the state controls the means of production, which is impossible if every citizen owns a replicator and fusion reactor. It's better described as an abundance economy. In Trek it's implied (in The Orville explicitly said) that humanity evolved first and later got the cool tech that allows you make anything you want out of thin air. That's probably how it has to happen because you just know if some tech bro actually made the replicator a thing it would be burdened with DRM and onerous licensing fees. Here's a replicator, it will feed you a gelatinous mass that tastes like garbage but meets all your nutritional requirements, if you want to replicate actual food you can purchase our Recipe Add On license at an annual fee of.....