No, I'm saying the article calling the potential "unrealized" is bunk. Apple knew full well what the iPad could be used for and crippled it... I mean designed it in Cupertino... for a closed ecosystem to reduce support calls and keep it in it's walled garden to drive revenue and profit.

I'm sure both avenues were very apparent, flexible hardware or closed ecosystem. Apple sees more money in the closed ecosystem. If the walled garden is so valuable, why did Apple ever allow iTunes on Windows devices? Answer: to drive iPod adoption by opening up to 95% of computer users.

I worked in a public school district and fought tooth and nail against iPad adoption for exactly the lack of features the iPad Pro now, mostly supports. When the educators and administrators were asked how the iPads were actually going to be used, managed, stored, powered, paid for etc. it mostly fell apart.

Apple wants and wanted users to buy their premium brand tablets, iPads, and cousume services and apps with monthly recurring revenue.
1. External storage = reduced iCloud revenue
2. USB port = reduced accessory and compatability licensing revenue
3. Enterprise App installations = reduced App Store revenue
4. Advanced browser capabilities = reduced App Store revenue
5. Multitasking = probably takes a bit more powerful hardware, costing more
6. User profiles = fewer iPads sold
All of this contributes to making it difficult and painful, if not impossible, to not use the Apple ecosystem after purchasing the hardware.

The Jones' and their ilk, gobbled them up regardless.

I didn't realize the study was quite as thin as you point out, but my point still stands.

At least we have evidence and not just logic based on a couple hundred years of capitalism and thousands of years of human greed.

If they can't list to me what the fee is, how are they able to collect on it?

So if I pay for the actual service provided, then include $.01 extra toward the fees, how do they know which fee I did not complete payment for? In theory, if I ask them to provide which fees I didn't fulfill payment for, they would be unable to do so.

You could have just said, "The laws are fair and just and the example of Amazon abusing copyright will never come to pass."

You don't need to point out how dumb we all are for fearing the wealthy's history of abusing every system ever to maintain wealth, power and status.

Edit: incorrect word/misspelling

but I can't vouch for it 100%

If I have to babysit the AI tool or put my own warnings on the output, that seems counterproductive. Furthermore, it can make you look incompetent.

"I didn't look too close at it, because I don't have time, so I used Copilot. The summary looks OK, but I can vouch for it 100%."
Not what anyone above you is going to accept as an answer for information you present them for decision making, legal responsibility or other.

First, I think even asking for such credentials should be illegal.

Having said that, good ol' Merican capitalism will tell you to look elsewhere if you don't like the terms; there are plenty of other places in the world to live.

Wasn't it just a few weeks back Microsoft said don't use Copilot in Excel for any thing you may be legally responsible for?

If that's the case, why do business/enterprises seem so hot to adopt Copilot as their AI?

If I can't use Copilot to manipulate or whatever the data in an Office app, for which the output may be used/fed into some other Office document that M$ recommends I don't use AI for, then where is its real value and use case for Copilot?

Corporate training? Not if any of it is legally required.
PR communications? Not if you ever suspect it to show up in court.
Summarizing financial statements? Not if you have to provide that information to anyone who can read them without help from AI.

How much do I need to spend on AI for reminders and a to do list? I thought they figured that our with Outlook about 20 years ago.

Sure, if you ignore what has been talked about for nearly 20 years now, oil is great. No need to invest in any alternate energy production/manufacturing technology domestically. When oil is no longer king, we'll all just move to China.

How's "Drill, baby, drill!" working out for us as a domestic and foreign, energy and economic policy?

Is all the anti-green economy non-sense going to be good for future generations?

Late stage capitalism is thrown about when it looks like various business have run out of ideas to extract wealth from society and chose to reduce human capital, lower wages, pursue rent seeking behavior, and/or overtly buy government favor. They want to be Rent-A-Center, but not just for TVs and junk furniture, but for your whole life. If regular people don't have decent jobs, where is all that sweet, sweet rent money going to come from?

Yes, small business in the US is still incredibly important to overall economic health. We do see a small number of very large players; be it tech, auto, real estate, finance, media etc.; that are actively working to consolidate power through acquisitions (organic and inorganic) or the ability to create perpetual rent seeking/subscriptions and remove ownership from vast swaths of society. By reducing market players, the large players no longer need to respond to market competition and innovate; they look for safer alternatives to increase profit and/or revenue, like reducing human capital or removing ownership. Removing ownership means the renter can no longer participate in traditional markets that provide equity/gains on investment like real estate and public stocks.

The fear about AI in the US is probably that the work AI is assisting with or replacing is not then followed by another industry for effected/replaced humans to step or grow into. Late stage capitalism is simply trying to figure out how not pay Europeans and North Americans middle class wages with this new form of automation. Without the middle class, who is going to buy all the things business are selling? 100,000 wealthy families don't need 200,000,000 shiny new iPhones, 3,000,000 automobiles, or 100,000 flights per day.

Coach and whip makers were replaced by the automobile industry which employs millions of workers through it's massive and complex supply chain. No one was trying to make coaches and whips without humans to increase profit, it was subsumed by an entire other industry.

Weavers were replaced by automated weaving looms that made textiles incredibly affordable to most people spurring growth in upholstery/furniture and clothing. While the goal was to make textiles faster and consequently with fewer humans, it was a permanent boon to business that already used textiles, increasing economic opportunities for average people by providing less expensive goods and lowered the barrier to entry for textile based businesses.

It's real. Texas has banned it. A state run by so-called "pro-life" "Christians" who espouse "small and limited government" have, once again, overturned a life saving measures enacted by local city governments.

https://thehill.com/opinion/he...