Could someone with an affected TV and the patience to read all that shit look at the legal terms to see if this is one of those inadvertent things you accepted when you clicked-through the license?

(My TV is probably too old to host that crap, and besides I don't connect it to the Internet. My streaming comes through an Apple TV. At least I -know- who's monitoring my TV usage.)

I think there's some confusion between architects and engineers. My father, a structural CE, often complained about architects who drew pictures of stuff that would not stand up. It was a back-and-forth to come up with a design that met architect's intent AND civil engineering. (Note that both could be liable if the building fell down, but that's another discussion...)

But as someone who has been thinking about software/systems architecture "versus" software/systems engineering since about 1990, a key part of the difference follows from structures. If the structure is a church, the architect is responsible for understanding what makes a church 'church-like', the requirements and constraints of the religion, the size of the congregation, acoustics, how the church fits on its lot, etc. That's reasoning about the structure as a whole. The engineer takes that architecture, and then figures out the internal approach to make sure the church stays standing, even with snow/wind loads, etc. Thus I've viewed 'architecture' as holistic and focused on identifying and resolving a larger set of stakeholders and their requirements/concerns. This came in the early 90s from looking across a bunch of large systems, some successes and many failures. The successes had a representation of the entire system that you could view, reason about how the system operated (in its environment, e.g. a C2 system that had to be survivable even in a nuclear engagement), and the internal behavior of the system. We called that representation the "architecture". Systems without such a representation pretty much failed, in large part because the implementers never really understood the full set of requirements and constraints.

Getting back to AI and 'vibe coding', domain knowledge, this sense of 'architecture' as a holistic view of the system/software, will still be required and will still be hard to produce. And consider: Where will tomorrow's designers/architects come from, if not from people learning from experience about the details of the domain and the implementation details?

Sam Altman lives in his own hallucination, spouting bullshit.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...

It's complex, lots of justices agreeing or arguing. It'll keep legal analysts/commentators busy for a while. But its core holding, "IEEPA does not authorize tariffs" is decided pretty comprehensively. (IANAL.)

I have very little respect for corporate HR and in particular their ability to adequately handle employee grievances. So if they're getting drowned in AI Slop, I'm inclined to think "And That's A Good Thing."

As Willy Horton observed about banks, for most Big Tech companies, advertising is their primary source of revenue. So it's no surprise they'd look to increase the profitability (reducing costs, increasing "effectiveness") for advertising.

My question remains "Who actually reads those ads?" and more importantly "Who responds to all the shit on websites?" (I don't...)

More unsubstantiated rumor from people whose business it is to generate CLICKS TO THEIR WEBSITE. When have you ever heard someone like Gurman or Bloomberg News admit they were wrong, or that they just made some shit up?

New Siri is a significant/important thing for Apple. They should spend the time to get it right The release should be based on functionality, not schedule. But I suspect the people who actually know about this are not leaking this kind of status.

Caveat Lector (and Caveat Investor)

"and if the Ai isn't storing and selling information about the user to the advertiser". I'm sure there's other conditions that should be levied on ad-based LLMs.

And, historically, someone here will post about how Apple products are overpriced and over-hyped. Still, people seem to be willing to pay that premium. I wonder why that is....

Apple records a massive increase in iPhone sales, particularly in China, and record results in high-margin Services. So what's the headline here? "Apple might have to raise prices or drop margins due to memory costs" (as if that's unique to Apple.) I believe the technical term for that is "bullshit."

Consider: (1) Apple is doing on-chip integrated memory. So they're not competing for separate DRAM chips. They would compete for flash components. (2) Apple negotiates long-term, 'preferred treatment' contracts with its suppliers. It's quite likely the contracts for this year's iPhone production run are set, and possibly next year's too. (I don't know and I don't think Apple says what their supply chain lead times are.) (3) Anyone competing in the market for memory chips would be in the same situation. But see point #2. (4) Apple explicitly addressed this a couple of times in last week's results call, and disclaimed the kind of significant impacts the "commentariat" (nod to Horace Dideu for the term, https://asymco.com/2026/02/01/...) is claiming.

So at best I'd conclude there's an explicit sense of "We don't believe what Apple said last week". But more significantly, this is consistent with the non-stop "Apple is Doomed!" pieces that pop up like clockwork each quarter. Why? Because bad news about Apple brings in the clicks. It's not journalism, it's click-bait.

Well, after using an iPhone, I tried an Android. I found it to be confusing and baroque. More significantly, I haven't seen any significant new feature that is sufficiently different from an iPhone to make me want to move to Android as my primary device. (I got the Android phone to run one app that is not available on iOS.)

I'm not saying people shouldn't buy Android phones, if that's what they want. But to castigate people who choose iPhones as 'sheep' or other pejorative judgements is disgusting to me. Each person makes a choice based on his/her preferences. If you don't like Apple the company or iOS the platform or iPhone the device, good for you. Don't insult those who don't share your preferences.

And Apple can collect 30%. Everyone wins!

Like PETA... This is about attention and clicks. Otherwise, there would be an actual scientific peer-reviewed and reproducible algorithm to set the clock.

You're replying to my post, so I can't mod you +1 funny!