That would only be fair if Epic/Unreal had a large enough market share of the gaming industry, and significant ability to lock their gaming customers into only Epic/Unreal gaming platforms, to be considered as much of a competitive concern as Apple's App Store. Neither of those are true.

The clear guidance for what is unreasonable is any amount above what

There was plenty of information given during the case to show that 27% was not a reasonable fee for linked-out purchases based on Apple’s “actual costs” to “ensure user security and privacy." So they can charge something, but it can't be a profit center. Apple will be given an opportunity to show the cost of maintaining the Apple Store and keeping it secure, which of course will be scrutinized.

My guess is it will be less than 5%, unless Apple does a good enough job lobbying.

No, it was no different with the US. This is an irrelevant story for the whole world outside of the US, because they have been living in this reality for 75+ years. The only nation who is feeling a new pain is the US.

Correct, the problem is that China is acting more like the US now. Which is more of a problem for the US than for other nations, because we have been taking advantage of our unique status to increase our standard of living at other nations' expense, and that will now be harder. You have it backwards about who should be worried about it. My guess is out of some misplaced feeling of hypocrisy.

A CEO doesn't get paid for any of the work AI does. CEOs collect information from other executives, peers, consultants, and the media and make decisions. LLMs can disrupt the work of consultants, the media, and the employees feeding information to executives, but it's horrible at making good decisions that can be trusted.

In fairness, since some of the claims are that AI will replace all jobs, even massive disruption such as replacing 10% of the workforce is still a very big deal. I'll be surprised if we don't reduce our call center staff by at least 50% in the next 3 years, and AI chat/voice bots is a small portion of that projection. That is mostly from AI agents assisting call center agents and assisting product managers to find ways to improve human agent UX.

LLMs were capable of doing all of this in early 2024, and have only gotten better since then. We weren't having success with nano/flash models in 2024 but we have been moving to those models for most use cases in late 2025 (reducing LLM costs by 80%).

That is usually true, but we don't always use AI to replace employees (although it usually does).

I am working on something now that reads all of our transcripts and identifies what part of each call takes the most time to help product management prioritize call center improvements. Traditional NLP couldn't do as good of a job at this as early testing is showing LLMs can do. We would have to more than triple our call center staff to have a human listen to every single call and identify opportunities to improve call center agent UX, but a nano/flash LLM can do this for around 1 cent per call. For $250k we can do this for our 25M annual annual calls. That isn't replacing a human. It is doing something we would have never paid humans to do and giving us information we never would have had.

This information will still be used to either decrease call center staff or increase the caller experience, but that is true of every product enhancement we do for this business function. Not just AI.

There is a simple (and difficult) solution, but it destroys the illusion that having a college degree is a simple way to determine if someone will be a good employee.

If the degree is meant to show that someone has the knowledge to do the job, it isn't great because they don't teach enough on the job related skills in college.
If the degree is meant to show that someone has the critical thinking skills to do the job, it isn't great because those skills aren't focused on much in most colleges.
If the degree is meant to show they can work and think quickly under pressure, it isn't great because schools will often accommodate for students who struggle in those areas.
If the degree is meant to show they can work hard and follow through with a fairly challenging four year task, it is pretty good at that.
If the degree is meant to show they have enough foundational knowledge to learn to do the job, it is pretty good at that.
If the degree is meant to show they came from an upper middle class socioeconomic background (so they fit in with the corporate culture), or at least had middle class families that worked hard to give their children the benefits of an upper middle class upbringing, it is pretty good at that too.

If you want someone to do a job that is high stress and requires quick thinking, you better assess for that competency yourself instead of assuming a college degree is enough of a hiring filter. But most jobs don't (or shouldn't) require those skills.

I am in corporate strategy, and while I can think on my feet well enough to handle meetings with executives, I do my best thinking after a few hours (or weeks) of contemplation and research. No one should want someone to help advise on critical business decisions just because they are better at coming up with a decent answer in 5 minutes. Different jobs require different skills.

The article itself gets the real point across eventually, but it is very poorly written and the title is intentionally misleading to be provocative. All they are claiming is that ADHD is a collection of diagnoses, not a single ailment. It is an important point, because you can't assume everyone with ADHD has the same problems just because they have that diagnosis, but that fact should never be used to imply those ailments don't exist.

Capitalism and a Free Market also describe different things. All you need to have capitalism is private ownership of the means of production in the economy. A free market is arguably necessary to ensure capitalism doesn't devolve into a plutocracy, but it isn't a necessary component of capitalism.

It's rarely going to all be in just one category. Most of my early TV viewing was mindless entertainment, but I taught myself to read by watching Sesame Street. Most of my early computer usage was playing video games, but I also learned QBasic in 4th grade so I could create my own video games. Which ultimately led to a career that put me into the top 5% of earners (not writing video games though).

My 11 year daughter watches a lot of mindless YouTube shorts. But she also watching videos that help her learn to write better stories, and her early love of gems currently has her quite interested in Geology to learn where gems come from. I try to take the good with the bad.

I'm old enough to remember the first CDROMs, but was only a tween / teenager at the time. I remember loving that CD slop, perhaps because I was too young to recognize its low value. I also remember hating Myst and being very upset for wasting what was at the time a lot of money on that game (I think around $60, at a time when $30-50 was more common for games). It was very slow pace with little to no action, so it probably didn't give my young brain enough dopamine hits.

Now that I have tweens of my own, I see that same behavior where they disregard anything I think is valuable as boring and spend their time on content I view as mindless. But every time I am about to block all digital access, my 11 year old uses AI to help come up with ideas to get past her writer's block on the horror book she is writing (she gets her oddity from me), which reminds me of when I fit in enough time to learn Basic at her age in between all my video game playing.

I just had trouble looking at a comment on one of my posts yesterday because I can't get through the Cloudflare bot detector. I'm not sure why that is only used when looking at my comment history. It's funny that I first have that problem this morning on Slashdot just to see this story at the top of my news feed on the same site.

I have been complaining for 30 years that game companies have used AI to drive the decisions of dishonestly named "non-player characters" instead of employing real human beings to play against the people buying their games. Billions of jobs have been lost over the decades!

That is true of everything sold as protectionist in developed countries. Developing countries do have a real need to protect their fledgling growing industries, but that is only true for significantly struggling developed countries. If you are among the top 10 economies in the world, 100% of everything your politicians tell you is done for protectionist purposes is hogwash.