And in the mean time you put up with the inconveniences. It's kind of like getting a job where they promise to pay you 10 years later.

Charge where? You think the company is going to have a charger for everyone to sit at while they are in the meeting?

People didn't expect you to take a train across the country to go to a wedding or birthday party.

First, you'll have to build the hotword support for them, because you're not going to want to give random companies the ability to surreptitiously keep the mic hot and listen for the hotword support, because nothing would prevent them from exfiltrating arbitrary amounts of audio. This means developing a framework for running third-party companies' on-device hotword detection models and triggering the execution of that third-party code when the hotword is detected.

Next, you'll need to be able to support running the on-device models, though I guess that already exists.

And if you don't mandate that any prospective provider must give the same level of security that Apple does (e.g. running all cloud-based processing in an encrypted container), you will massively weaken the security of the platform, so to make this even remotely tolerable, you'l need a fine-grained security model to limit what gets shared with that third-party provider. Given that this is going to involve things like sniffing the keyboard in real time, accessing arbitrary text fields in the browser, etc. on command, that is a non-trivial amount of invasiveness, so giving users control over what gets shared and what doesn't get shared could be a nightmare.

I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg here.

It could be done, yes. Doing it in a way that respects user privacy would require a lot of careful thought when designing the architecture, IMO.

One of the biggest problems, from my perspective, is the risk of allowing real-time audio input from a background app that the user may or may not be actively engaged with. It's not just data. It's a live mic.

As far as I know, Apple isn't preventing companies from being able to add features and services inside Siri. They're just not allowing companies to replace it wholesale. You can run any arbitrary model that you want to within their frameworks, and you can extend Apple's assistant platform in arbitrary ways. What you can't do is switch to an entirely different assistant front end.

And even if you ignore the security concerns, there are very real usability reasons to disallow replacing Siri outright. Imagine if every app developer had to write twelve different versions of their AI integrations so that their apps would work with the twelve different assistants that users install on their devices. It would break the unity of the platform and make life miserable for developers. Realistically, nobody would support anything but Apple's built-in offerings, so any third-party services would be DOA anyway.

With that said, my opinion is based entirely on what I saw at their keynote on Monday and a quick gut check. I could be very wrong here, and I'm open to contrary opinions.

There should be something like social networks, but with a scoring system controlling what you see so you aren't deluged with bots, and which is also peer to peer. Because social networks aren't the problem, having them controlled by people who think those who trust them are "dumb fucks" is the problem. (Not that they're wrong.)

Never fear, my actual expectations are low.

I heard that the Chinese Embassy on Monday accused the U.S. of "overstretching the concept of national security and making discriminatory lists to go after Chinese companies." It said Chinese companies observe the laws and regulations of the countries where they do business. "The U.S. should stop its wrong practice and create a fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese companies," the embassy said in a statement.

I also heard that the Chinese Embassy on Monday accused the U.S. of "overstretching the concept of national security and making discriminatory lists to go after Chinese companies." It said Chinese companies observe the laws and regulations of the countries where they do business. "The U.S. should stop its wrong practice and create a fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese companies," the embassy said in a statement.

Did you have to stop and charge at least once?

People didn't live half way across the country from their families before gas stations. That only started after gas stations because they made it possible, along with better cars. Now we can't go back to that world where people had to travel long distances regularly so this is the world EVs have to sell in.

Why wouldn't you stop at a gas station with a charger instead of stopping in a parking lot with nothing around it? Surely there are chargers with facilities like a gas station. What happens at night? You sit in an empty parking lot? Isn't that unsafe?

Everyone gets that backwards. No that doesn't mean it meets almost everyone's needs. It only means it meets the needs of people most of the time. A person who drives an average of 30km per day can still go on 400km trips, it just means the other days are very low milage.

The subconscious has entered the chat. But... quietly.

Anyway that's nonsense. Attention is single-subject. Consciousness is not, not even close.

Those aren't cameras linked directly to a social network. They're CCTV sent back home if anything. Sometimes only a low-res stream is sent, sometimes nothing.

No one with even two brain cells to rub together thinks they can teach anything to dogshit stupid denialists.

People who live in Calgary have to go to meetings in person in Edmonton all the time.