Nobody wants your shitty iOS. People tolerate it on phones, because you taught them that it's ok for PCs to suck if they fit in one hand. But once the one hand constraint is lifted, people come back to their senses for some weird reason. You did too good a job of persuading people to treat phones as weird exceptions to common sense, when you should have undermined common sense itself (but that would have harmed Mac sales).
Let's work with the argument's load-bearing phrase, "exploration is an intrinsic part of the human spirit."
There are so many things to criticise in that single statement of bias. Suffice it to say there's a good case to be made that "provincial domesticity and tribalism are prevalent inherited traits in humans", without emotional appeals to a "spirit" not in evidence.
Or if it's even still readable. Intel when retrieving the 486 tape-in for the Edison project had to bake the tapes in an oven to remove moisture, and then had ONE CHANCE at imaging the tape as it crumbled to dust going through the reader.
Me: you know, many businesses already change between summer and winter schedules; many retail stores, many services, many public transit operators.....
how the hell could they make the "just one administrator" mistake?
It's not a mistake, because it's not a 'permissions/who can be administrator' 'mistake.' It's the account owner. It's the person who's credit card is on file.
Spam, spam, spam, eggs and spam didn't provide enough incentive to try to distinguish between humans and skin jobs, but now "AI slop" does? Ok, great!
Check the OpenPGP signature.
Unsigned?
Signed but no trust path?
Signed and with a trust path? Can still be trash, but its claims to be of human origin, are worth taking seriously. If you find a problem (e.g. someone trusted the wrong person) then deal with that then.
Why would Apple 'comply with a court order' that has nothing to do with them?
If the court ordered the father to disband the account, and he didn't disband the account, he needs to be taken back to court to force compliance.
That being said, the article DID make clear that there WAS a court order for him to disband the account, and even if he was using in all the right ways for all the right reasons, not-complying with a court order is extremely problematic.
Then her remedy is to go back to court and compel the target of the order, aka the ex-husband, to do as ordered, not to claim that a third party with no standing in the case is at fault.
If you and I contract that I will sell you may Ford Escape for five grand, and you give me five grand and I don't give you the keys, you don't go to Ford and ask them to make you a key. They will, correctly, say "....and what does this have to do with us?" when you wave the sale contract at them.
And nothing Apple did or didn't do prevented the mother from having that custody.
She had a remedy from day one: make new accounts for the kids. Inconvenient? Sure. But way less inconvenient than most of the stuff that goes along with 'we're separating.'
*Should* Apple develop a system to deal with this a big more gracefully? I'd say so. But to conflate this with 'they're violating a court order for custody' is utterly ridiculous.
A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms. -- George Wald