I’m not sure how this is “surprising” given that most people either loathe QR menus, or are at best neutral.

In the abstract I lean neutral, like a restaurant with a QR menu is going to have an up to date menu online which makes it easier to decide what to have in advance of going. In “the real world” I’m negative since frequently whatever little underpowered server the is hanging onto the menus tends to be slow to cough it up, or maybe the restaurants “hosting provider” intentional bandwidth limits the thing hoping to squeeze some sort of upgrade fee onto the restaurant. At any rate it tends to be far slower then t has any right to be, and harder to flip around in.

I have never encounter someone who goes “QR menus! I love those!”, I rarely encounter someone who doesn’t complain. Maybe not enough to say they won’t go, but if they complain it clearly plays into their choice a little bit. Like “I want the fried chicken...but not at the QR menu place, bah!”, just most people don’t give their entire restaurant selection thought process out loud...

That may come to pass, but they were not taking a class that was teaching that. They took ”how to think”, and fobbed it off onto AI. More over they didn’t even use the tools you are claiming are of value well enough not to get caught.

AI being tech advances, but to me right now there are two key parts of “using AI well”, figuring out how to phrase a prompt that gets plausible seeming answers, and perhaps more importantly being able to understand the answer well enough to know if it is crap or not. I assert (without proof!) that the students that get caught using AI are running aground on the rocky shores of “AI produced total crap for an answer”. The equivalent of the AI inventing non-existent papers and citing them, or not existent law cases. Or miscounting the r’s in strawberry. Or maybe even advocating that one glue cheese to the crust to keep it from running off of one’s pizza. Or advising one eat a non zero number of rocks.

Maybe in the future AI will be better at not producing factually incorrect answers (LLMs do it basically by design as a byproduct of avoiding hill climbing and stale prose). That doesn’t seem to be in the cards in the short term though.

Ok, ok, ok I’m way out on a limb here about _why_ they got caught, but I’m perfectly fine with having some classes about how to use AI. I’m also fine having classes where one should not be using AI, and for people who do so to face the consequences (which ought not be more severe from plagiarizing in general, or other forms of cheating),

Also won’t make much difference if you assume that social media will be assessed in bad faith, and refuse to post anything that could be remotely misinterpreted.

In other words if you keep your head down and assume you live in a police state it’ll all work out ok.

Unless of corse you are a fan of the wrong sports ball team and an immigration official decides to “not have anymore JETS fans” in the country. So maybe the best policy is not to have an social media footprint at all if you are an immigrant...

(note: I once applied for a job somewhere that wanted to do a “background check” and you had to cough up social media handles so they could do a scan...I was disqualified because I didn’t have a facebook presence or twitter at the time, or anything else they recognized, and they decided that was suspicious & merited a failing “grade"...no reason an immigration official couldn’t decide someone with no social media footprint is just as suspicious as a potential new citizen...so keep in mind it may not be enough just to keep your head down, you may need to find the right social medias to join, follow a statistically correct number of people, and post just a few of just the right memes, or get out of the country)

Indeed they are, but keep in mind the kind of things people post on social media tend to be pictures and words. You can be very law abiding and still say things. Like “this kind of shit would never have happened in the old country”, or “America is pretty awesome, but it is a shame you can’t get decent food most places”, and “Fantastic people, shame about the President”.

I mean we do have a strong tradition of complaining about our government, and you can be perfectly law abiding and still talk trash about social and fiscal policy. You can be a legal immigrant obeying all local laws and have an opinion about say loan forgiveness. (my controversial poison, disliked by most people is “yeah, it is a loan and letting people out of it for free isn’t great, but making them immune to bankruptcy is lunacy, lets retroactively make all loans subject to the jurisdiction of bankruptcy court, and all educational loans automatically dissolved in a bankruptcy”)

Immigrants should have the freedom to have feelings about US policy, and voice them. As opposed to having everything they post on social media be subject to the whims of immigration officials.

Ok, well I have these Google (er, Nest...no...Google?) WiFi routers, made in....oh hey China! Maybe I should ditch them and buy some American Amazon Eero WiFi routers? I think they are made in Vietnam, that’s good right? Yeah? No? Should I fall back on my very very old Apple WiFi routers most definitely made in China?

Does anyone make WiFi routers in the USA?

If the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) had named it to “The Gulf of The Big Fat Orange Baby” Google Maps would have reflected the change just as fast.

Granted they probably would have put out an emergency update to roll it back lest they suffer in the following tantrum.

The speed at which the change was adopted has more to do with it coming via proper avenues not anyone actually wanting to make the orange baby happy. GNIS’s names are considered authoritative for the USA, and are accepted on a semi-automated basis. Mostly because their are thousands of these a day, mostly minor water ways and other things that effect people in limited geographic areas that Google has limited ability to check and correct anyway (like say a pond on one or two people’s private property in the middle of nowhere in VT). https://maps.app.goo.gl/sUHAAR...

Worse, Firefox and Safari are *also* funded largely by money paid to those browsers in exchange for Google Search being the default search engine, with 86% of Firefox's revenue coming from that agreement. If part of the DOJ settlement involves Google not being allowed to do this, there's a good chance that web browser development will come to a screeching halt across the entire industry. And if the decision doesn't prevent that, then you would end up with Chrome development being paid for by Google, so you would likely gain almost nothing from the split.

FYI good overall analysis!

Safari alone of all the browsers has a source of income available to it: Apple has a lot of money. It doesn’t need Google’s money in order to keep working on Safari. They fund it because it is part of the battery life testing, so making it use 10% less power over a 20 hour test improves battery life by a noticeable amount (not 10% because other tasks are involved). They fund it because JavaScript is a direct part of many smartphone benchmarks, so making Safari 10% faster makes the next iPhone have noticeably better scores. Any usability improvements help sell their hardware products, and so on.

Of corse that assumes that Apple can successfully argue that including Safari software as part of the hardware purchase of a Mac or iPhone doesn’t constitute illegal bundling (which Apple currently does mostly by claiming they are not dominant in the smartphone world, Android has substantial market share, and on the laptop/desktop world they argue Windows is dominant...and while they have a point, it is substantially blunted by the government deciding Android is a monopoly...or at least I think it is).

I’m not a lawyer so I don’t have a great knowledge of what a court will do, I think it is easier for Apple to convince a jury that including a web browser as part of an operating system product, and including that operating system product for free as part of hardware product is expected in the modern computing era then Google had of convincing a jury that serving ads requires funding your own web browser and giving it away for free...or making smartphones. Regardless of my personal feelings on what “should be” bundled and shouldn’t.

Eh, not really, but close.

For example Chrome was greenlit because “if successful” it gave Google a web browser they controlled and they could use it to make sure nobody ever made it impossible for Google’s ad system to work on the web. It wasdefensive, built in an era where Google’s fear was Microsoft’s IE becoming dominant and ad blocking Google into non-existence.

Chrome doesn’t make any money because it is very hard for a web browser to make money. Other companies already offered free web browsers of reasonable quality, and web browsers are big and complex, funding development of a world class web browser is expensive, far more so then they could earn if they had to rely on customers paying for it.

So Chrome’s existence independent of Google’s ad revenue propping it up is a tough sell. That wasnt’ designed to make it impossible to break up Google, i.e. it wasnt’ a strategy to design Chrome as a self destructing chunk of economic value that people will be upset to see fizzle out of existence because the big old mean government curb stomped Google. That is a pure side effect.

It isn’t dramatically different form Apple and Safari. Safari exists because IE for the Mac wasn’t very good, and having a major platform with a crap web browser isn’t a tenable prospect. Even in the early 2000s. You can make a more compelling argument that Safari is part of Apple’s core product not a “bundling for business purposes”, but it is still an expensive bit of software that couldn’t justify it’s own expense with direct revenue if it had to sell itself as an independent product.

Most of Google’s products make very little money, a result of Google spending decades trying to figure out something that could be as profitable as the ad business while internally being flooded with ad revenue so not being forced to kill off things that didn’t turn an actual profit. So it ends up with youtube (likely very profitable on it's own), maps (only profitable if you monetize ads, but very profitable if you do), and multiple chat and voice clients every few years and so on that just don’t make money. They probably could if you had to run them as a standalone business (see Zoom, and Slack, Google could have had that level of success, if they had decent marketing and aimed the products right). Plus things like the Nest line of products that were profitable before Google bought them. Or smartphone hardware which a few other companies manage to do at a profit (and to be fair most of them outsource the expensive R&D to Google, who has nowhere to outsource that too!).

Sure, but Apple also supplies the control widgets and has an existence proof they can do touch friendly controls, so that seems like an easy problem when you word it that way (or to be fair when I word it that way, I’m clearly strawmannirg it up here after all!)

The real problem is MacOS uses high information density UI designs. Which automatically end up with tiny touch targets. The problem with this problem is that macOS uses high inflation density UI because people who buy Macs want high information density. If you shift to large touch friendly targets you lower the information density and make the product do what most purchasers do not want.

Macs don’t have tiny buttons and little itty bitty toggle switches and scroll controls with “thumbs” that are smaller then a physical finger because Apple is too dumb to figure out how to “draw bigger”, it is because there is an actual limit on the size of user interface features that people actually are willing to put up with when they are using mice/trackpads.

My primary use case for Mac laptops is writing iOS and iPadOS apps for other companies (i.e. that is what they pay me for). It would definitely be nicer to be able to interact with the simulators via touch.

That said there is a vast gulf between the simulators and actual hardware (some frameworks are unavailable in the simulators no mater how much sense it would make to have it, plus the CPUs are vastly different speeds, and sometimes the simulator just uses the Mac framework, so the sim supports some API calls the real hardware will not, and so on), so I would still spend most of my time running actual hardware. It would definitely be an improvement if I could use my laptop as a touch device when what I’m actually doing is simulating a touch device though.

Not expandable in any modern Mac. You buy what you need over the life time of the device up front. It is wire bonded with the SoC which is much lower impedance then socketed RAM so they can use a lower voltage swing and shave some latency off of the RAM access time. (i.e. you get something for not being expandable...I mean other than an indecently high price!).

Non expandable isn’t a nonstarter as long as there is enough of whatever it is at a low enough price. Like I don’t see a lot of people taking a dump on the RPi for having non-expandable RAM. Granted while it is generally lightly spec’ed it is also dirt cheap. People forgive a $35 to $80 product a lot more then they forgive a $600 product.

I own the company I work for, and I won’t authorize myself to buy this thing for me. (to be fair I did buy myself the prior iPad Air, and two different sizes of iPad Pro -- mostly because I sell the service of writing iPadOS apps...and next on my hit list is the iPad mini because it is different enough in size to demand UI differences -- if a client had a problem that could only be reproduced on the M3 Air I would same day purchase one, I’m not dumb, I just prefer to limit my blueness expenses to things that I don’t think will trigger an audit!)

Yes, I do say “that” which was a number of specific examples naming which show did what.

You will note zero of them were “The Walking Dead” so your counter example from The Waling Dead isn’t exactly compelling, and falls exactly under this statement I made: “ Prestige TV tries to have an overarching story, and that generally (but not always) includes having an end”

So assuming TWD is "Prestige TV” it is also included under “but not always”.

I’m not going to argue that TWD had a planned ending, I’ll note I didn’t really like TWD a lot because it seemed to be “traditional TV” writ large. They set up a situation with the group coming into an area, finding it “good” on the surface, but being a huge problem, and then they escape and do it all over again. So “reset to base state and loop the show” just spread across 8 or 10 or 20 episodes not each week. Plus I’m not a huge zombie genre fan, so I’m not excited to watch a decent but not stellar example of the genre.

At the same time many other people loved TWD, and genuinely enjoyed it despite what to my eyes were significant flaws. Well, hey, it is entrainment, if they are enjoying it then it is right for them!

On the other hand that doesn’t mean you spotting it and saying “look a show without a real ending!” means you have a compelling counterargument to my “lots of shows (especially Prestige TV) do in fact have (by design!) real endings!”. The key is the original statement I was arguing against was an absolute (“TV shows by design don’t have endings!”) and only requires a single counter argument to be disproven. My statement had a quantifier “plenty of shows have real designed endings!”. You counter argument to my statement was “but look this one specific show doesn’t!”, which leave is open to “Duh! I said plenty, not all!”

Or perhaps more charitably: “Good job! You spotted why I’m not a big The Walking Dead fan! It is why I don’t love every single TV show, but only some limited number of shows!”

I think different people get different things out of eReaders. I mean, yeah, being able to adjust font sizes is useful/nice for me, I won’t deny. Then again the ability to take multiple books with me on trips is also super nice. Having my books on my phone as well so if I end up running an unexpected errand I have something to read is super super nice. Getting to the end of a book and buying the next one is a major game changer.

I’m old. I remember when getting to the end of the book ment needing to make a trip to a bookstore (or library), and frequently discovering they didn’t have it in stock and I can order it and come back next Thursday (or whatever) and maybe they will have it. Like we have gone from “a day or three or maybe two weeks or thereabouts” from hitting the end of one book to the start of the next in series to “a few seconds”. That’s huge for me.

Even so “always having my book” is a very very close second place (this morning the ATM was out of cash and I had to go into my bank, so it was nice to have my book).

Oh! A common eReader advantage, many people feel judged when they read romance (or in some cases sci-fi or fantasy!). Having no specific book cover displayed for everyone else to see is a boon to people who read such genres and are easily embarrassed (and/or who have childish coworkers). It is one reason the early years of eBooks saw dramatic increases in sales esp in romance/scifi/fantasy. Sadly it wasn’t really a permeant sales boost.

Other then Star Trek nexgen what has that trick worked for?