The definitions of 'advance or promote'; and 'equity ideology' are as well. You are basically looking at a situation where you could get hit with a $1.5 million clawback at any time for more or less anything someone at least vaguely connected to the PSF says that someone ends up feeling thin skinned about.

We're not even talking having to do anything: one probably-justified comment about how many people are going to get ICEd on the way to PyCon US this year would, in theory, be readable as falling under Executive Order 2(viii) " the United States is fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory."

Or, on the even-harder-to-avoid and less inflammatory side; it could just be someone doing vibe statistics about PSF grant recipients (257 groups or individuals last year; so a decent sized sample if the coming year or two aren't wildly lower) and kicking up a fuss on twitter about how they don't seem perfectly demographically matched to the ideal techbro. Wouldn't even need to be terribly plausible or statistically significant, just enough to chum the water a little.

If this were actually just about who gets hired to execute the work specifically funded by the grant the risk would at least be manageable enough to actually treat it as a meaningful choice you are being asked to make, rather than just a sword of Damocles.

I've done a lot of food delivery "gig work" over the years, as well as having friends in the restaurant industry who deal with it from the opposite end.
The apps like DoorDash absolutely rip you off as a customer. They add large percentages on to the restaurant's normal food prices and then you still have to pay the driver a tip, which is really a "bid for service" since you pay it before even getting your food. In the past, they really soured some smaller restaurants on them too, with stunts like adding them and their menus to the service without even asking the restaurant first (and would generally just set those up so Dashers paid with their pre-paid debit card upon arrival).

I don't quite get restaurants saying the food delivery is "killing them" though, either? If your food is popular enough so lots of people will pay huge upcharges just to have someone deliver it to them? You should be able to sell it at a profit and get the benefit of your place not being too full and turning dine-in customers away.

Most of the time? The places I see who claim services like DoorDash hurt them are just upset they have to adapt a bit. Their one cook in back can't make food fast enough and they won't pay for more labor, for example?

I think there's a strong argument to be made that people often consider Apple's control over their app store (and indeed, control over their hardware and software ecosystem in general) to be a FEATURE?

The fact that Apple vets apps that get published on its App Store adds value for a certain class of consumer. I completely get that there are people out there who want to buy only devices that give full freedom to install anything on them they can get their hands on. But a whole lot of people simply want to buy a reliable smartphone that they feel is relatively safe from malware/spyware or other "bad actor" applications.

I'm one of those people who usually owns/uses a combination of Apple products and other computers running Linux or Windows. I like the toolbox analogy... that while you might find your screwdriver an incredibly useful tool you're regularly reaching for? Sometimes a hammer is far better for a given application. Apple's whole ecosystem is, IMO, superior to the buggy mess of drivers/software and sometimes poorly tested OS updates in the Windows world. But when I want to play the latest AAA game title? The Mac is usually the inferior tool. And by the same token? I like the consistency of iOS devices over Android, where various handsets have front-end apps bolted onto them, depending on who made the device -- and where Android OS updates quickly become unsupported on many of them. I also like them for being able to give one to a fairly non-technical person while not fearing they'll click to download an app that steals their data and locks them out of the handset.

Buyers and sellers don't negotiate on the App Store from Apple but neither do they on most web storefronts I know of? If you don't host your own, you're stuck paying what the hosting service charges you to have a presence there, period.

I don't know that MS has been caught doing data transfers specifically(though they'd have to screw it up or have it leaked at a fairly high level to get caught; 'cloud' is basically always opaque on the back end as far as the customer can see); but there have been a couple of instances recently of service getting cancelled. When Trump got into a snit with the ICC cut their chief prosecutor off(Brad Smith mollified more or less nobody with the claim that they didn't cancel service to the ICC, just to the senior official that the feds were upset with, which is probably technically true in the sense of account GUIDs but not usefully true); and the also kicked Unit 8200 out of their cozy custom Azure environment; though apparently with enough notice that they were able to move the data somewhere else.

It seems likely that random European corporations see themselves as lower profile and less vulnerable than the ICC or Israeli military intelligence; but if anyone doing risk assessment for them hasn't at least considered the fact that basically a belligerent old man would just have to decide that they are 'very unfair' tomorrow; or that someone other than greenland needs to be brought into the homeland, and that would potentially be all it takes for your MS EA to just stop talking to you then they aren't doing their jobs very thoroughly.

"Generative" they said...

I completely get arguments about such things as Apple refusing to accept app submissions based on the apps "competing" against their bundled offerings. (So for example? Apple blocking acceptance of a wallet app for crypto-currency - which I recall them doing during the frenzy of people mining LTC and BTC with off the shelf PCs using GPUs.)

I don't at all follow the logic that Android and iOS are "so entrenched" that owners of either type of device will rarely switch to the other platform? I know so many people, personally, who went back and forth between an Apple iPhone and an Android of some type. If nothing else, people start to get a little bored of the phone they've had for years and get curious about trying the competition's device out.

I also disagree that in most cases, developers take issue with Apple and Google taking a cut from purchases made via apps. I think most people completely get the value in someone else distributing your app for you and incurring the bandwidth usage/hosting expenses involved. Most of the bickering comes about when they want to sell extra content or subscriptions related to the app by directing customers away from the App Store. That's really a separate issue, IMO.

In the new CEO's expertly crafted I-am-villain statement; he explains: "The past, he added in an email, is “simply not relevant to the new future.”"

I, um, guess it was polite of him to not talk about "the bigger picture" to the people whose eyes he shut down?

Will these ones retain vendor support longer than the last batch?

I suspect that they feel at least incrementally less burned in this case; since, while it wasn't obviously a good idea for a product, it at least goes somewhere: if you can make a phone functional and adequately rigid at that size; it's quite possible that there's a more sensible device size that you can still apply the miniaturized motherboard and whatever mechanical engineering you did for rigidity to; and just fill the rest of the case with battery; and there may be some other cases where the ability to get an entire SoC and supporting components into a particularly tiny area or make a thin component of a larger system quite rigid is handy.

Still doesn't really explain flaying a normal phone until it barely has a normal day's use with a totally fresh battery when you are still going to glue an entire baby spy satellite to one end of it; but some of the actual engineering is probably reusable.
The 'butterfly' keyboards, or the under-mouse charging port, by contrast, went nowhere. They tried and failed at a few iterations of keyboards that committed expensive suicide if you looked at them wrong; then just went back to allocating the extra mm or whatever once Jony was safely out of the picture; and it's not as though putting the port on the bottom rather than the front of the mouse involved any interesting capability development.

Whatever product manager thought that the 'air' would be a big seller deserves to feel bad; but the actual engineering team can probably feel OK about the odds that a future phone will look somewhat air-like if you were to remove the normally shaped case and larger battery.

It's stupid; but at least more honest than trying to dress 'grok' up as the master control computer.

In the MS case; it wouldn't be too surprising if that order is also the one that urgency dictates. Neither is totally unavailable on-prem only; or entirely without more-chatty-than-one-would-like behavior; but if your concern is about your dependence and Redmond's potential direct control their groupware stuff is moving faster than their OSes(at least if you have enterprise licenses and someone to handle keeping them quiet) in the direction of pure SaaS.

You'll get some nagging about how Azure Arc is definitely the cool kid's future of glorious hybrid manageability; but your ability to run Windows as though it were 15 years ago is definitely greater than your ability to run Office that way.

I suspect that this won't be the last case we see; as MS has shown comparatively little interest in backing down on the future being azure SaaS, and there's no real equivalent to some steep but temporary discounts for dealing with people who have fundamental privacy and operational control issues; while it's not terribly challenging to find a special discount that makes sticking with the status quo look cheaper than trying to do a migration.

I obviously don't expect better from these sorts of people; but I'm honestly puzzled as to why they would turn the screws so quickly and blatantly despite having gone to all the trouble of a reshuffle and a new lineup and some spiel about being likeable rather than Alexa just being something that you sort of poke at because Prime members were given a free surveillance puck with some offer one time.

Is Panay one of those abhuman lunatics who genuinely thinks that the only objection to relentless advertising is that it isn't "relevant" or "engaging" enough? Does he have a scorpion nature that leads him to knowingly doom his own product just because that's what he is? Is he just a figurehead who got to choose the case plastics colors and smile on stage; but some adtech business unit calls all the shots?

I'd fully expect this sort of thing to betray you; but only after enough of a honeymoon period for people to be pleasantly surprised by the behavior of the launch units so that there is actually enough of an install base to betray.

It sure is a good thing that 'AI' companies are notoriously discerning and selective about their training inputs and not doing something risky like battering on anything with an IP address and an ability to emit text in the desperate search for more; so this should be a purely theoretical concern.

Snark aside, I'd be very curious how viable this would be as an anti-scraper payload. Unlikely to be impossible to counter; but if the objective is mostly to increase their cost and risk when they trespass outside the bounds of robots.txt something that will just look a trifle nonsensical in places to a human but could cause real trouble if folded into a training set seems like it could be quite useful.

It can certainly be done otherwise; but it's not exactly unrelated when, in practice, a TPM is the industry standard mechanism for making a PC or PC-like system capable of cryptographically secure remote attestation; and when TPMs quite specifically mandate the features you need to do remote attestation rather than just the ones you would need to seal locally created secrets to a particular expected boot state. They are certainly can do that, and it's presently the most common use case; but locking down remote attestation was not some sort of accidental side effect of the design.

The place where TPMs potentially get toothy is remote attestation. As a purely local matter having your boot path determined to be what you think it is/should be is very useful; but, by design, you can also request that from a remote host. Again, super useful if you are dealing with a nasty secure orchestration problem(Google has a neat writeup of how they use it); but also the sort of thing that is potentially tempting for a relying party to use as part of authentication decisions.

We've seen hints at related issues on the Android side; where hardware attestation API or 'Play Integrity' API demands are made by some applications that block 3rd party ROMs, even if the boot sequence is entirely as expected(and even if the 3rd party ROM is almost certainly in much better shape than the first party one; eg. Graphene vs. some out-of-support entry level Samsung); which has chilled 3rd party ROMs considerably.

If relying parties who are important(ISPs, banks, etc.) do start demanding attestation the situation in practice becomes a great deal more restrictive.