Stoneykins [any]

Solution is simple, community should turn any suspiciously product focused thread into an advertisers nightmare of filth

Then the ads will just be the ones with the comment sections turned off

Apple is interested in maintaining full control of what apps can be on their platform and how they are presented because it gives them power over negotiations with companies that build the apps. They are basically able to “name their price” and make sure they are always getting as big of a cut as they would like.

The EU is interested in not letting them do that because that kind of “negotiating” behavior is pretty well understood to be anti-consumer. Increased costs for app developers are usually passed directly onto the consumer through the prices. And it tends to get worse over time.

No company anywhere wants to use webapps anymore. Apps installed on devices are free advertising and access to user data. It is frustrating but the way it is, on all devices, already. So basically the answer is the same as why can’t most apps that already exist on all devices anyways just be web apps.

I don’t think sideloaded would be quite the right word, this is about access to other app stores (like the google play store or amazon app store, or more niche ones) that would then formally and automatically install and maintain apps exactly the same way the apple app store already does, presumably just with a different library of apps to choose from.

Apps from another app store would need no access to any API by apple unless they were specifically interacting with apple services, AFAIK. Which, would be under the full control of apple and apple chooses who uses it, how, and how much they use it, but that is already the case regardless.

I tried to answer your confusions as best as I can do with what I know already. As for why people take this so personally, I would say it is a complex topic combining businesses that are constantly trying to drive each other out of business with the social effects of making the tool people use to communicate a status symbol. And it has been brewing for long enough that people are getting extreme opinions and fostering long term grudges based on personal experience, to the point that some people have some real hatred towards anyone who has a different phone OS than them.

This was a long comment to type and I did it while laying in bed half asleep. Sorry if it has a bunch of typos or errors lol

I won’t call you names but this literally doesn’t make any sense to me. In no way would the apple app store be affected, your walled garden is safe. To extend the metaphor, this is like giving you the option to take walks in other gardens, but your walled garden is still where you left it, gate locked.

I’m not here to argue the finer points, and in general I simply try to aim for the practical actions that lead to better circumstances. I agree with many of your points.

This lawsuit won’t fix anything but it will slow down the progress of OpenAI and their ability to loot culture and content for all it’s value. I see it as a foot in the door for less economically capable artists and such.

Lawsuits are not isolated incidents. The outcome of this will have far reaching impacts on the future of how people’s work is treated in regards to AI and training data.

Noooooooooo. No.

Everyone and every organization has a bias. Even a “neutral” bias is a bias. Finding out which way their bias leans is good info to figure out.

For someone who claimed to not be a fan of OpenAI, you sure do know all the fan arguments against regulation for AI.

Some people are missing the forest for the trees here

Having a businesses app on your phone is better regular advertising than anything they could ever pay for.

They just want an excuse to make you look at their logo and think about their business as regularly as possible

I’m not sure why anyone would expect trump to not also fund the genocide of Palestinians.

Bluntly, the policy differences between the two are insufficient, but the behavior of trump supporters themselves is part of my considerations. Having trump as president for 4 years inspired incredibly fucked up behavior from conservatives.

I can only accept that as an argument for why strategic voting is smart. It doesn’t make sense to me as an argument for saying voting for the candidate you want is morally wrong in contexts where it could cause a spoiler effect. This is where people are blurring the line that bothers me.

I agree with all that. Your point about ranked choice is why I personally think state elections are more important than presidential at the moment, and is one of the major reasons I have for still voting democrat.

I think when it comes to telling other people how to vote, people should be more careful to not accidentally encourage hopelessness and voter apathy by the way they phrase it.

I don’t agree with saying anything but voting for joe biden is totally equivalent to voting for trump, which is being said a lot… I don’t see why.

Not voting or voting 3rd party can cause a spoiler effect. But obviously that effect is less than directly voting for the worse guy. Mathematically they aren’t the same.

It is causing a lot of conflict to try and place a moral obligation on strategic voting specifically.

Everyone who is about to yell at me: I’ll probably vote strategically, that is my plan. I just don’t agree with all this hatred for 3rd parties.

Global climate change and the all the plants and animals that have gone extinct makes Africa a different place than it was when hominids first evolved. And the population sizes were on entirely different magnitudes pre-agriculture. And even then, when they did start spreading, many of them starved or died from other things we would consider preventable in modern contexts.

So whether or not people are currently dealing with food insecurity in Africa has pretty much nothing to do with where humanity evolved from. The explanation for what is going on, even though we have agriculture and could feed everyone, is colonialism.

I agree with and understand a lot of your frustrations, as they are also my frustrations.

But you basically said “I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, so now I will vote for the greater of two evils.” Just vote 3rd party or something, and try to not take it personally when people are assholes about elections.

The two party problem as a result of first past the post means that not voting against the party you dislike more can result in a spoiler effect, and reduce the chances of the not-as-bad mainstream party winning the election. But, I reject that that spoiler effect is necessarily as bad as voting directly for the worse candidate, it is mathematically untrue. Many people try to insist they are equivalent to try and motivate voting, but I think it has the opposite effect, making people feel apathetic about the entire voting process.

Under first past the post we cannot be free of the biases of the system that enforces two parties, BUT it is possible to rarely, with a big movement of people, swap a third party with on of the major parties to replace it as a major party. The way I see voting 3rd party in situations like this is like the prisonor’s dilemma. People are motivated individually to cast their votes strategically for the major party they prefer by the spoiler effect, but if enough people collectively vote 3rd party then the outcome would be better for everyone. Thus, I cannot agree with or accept people claiming voting third party is unacceptable. It might not be likely to be effective, but it is hopeful and not nearly as misguided as people try to insist it is.

Also, Idk if this even applies to me, I’ll probably be using my vote strategically. I just support people’s right to vote 3rd party.

I’m so tired of people saying not voting for biden is completely equivalent to voting for trump, but this is stupid.

I think they are arguing that using disney stuff as training data would be the infringement, and if the logo showed up in generated images, that would be proof they did that.

But I’m guessing because it is phrased weird if they meant that. Idk.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

That is exactly my point. Glad you could see it my way.

Except for the draw part. This wasn’t a competition, and in the nicest way possible, I’ll just walk away from this thinking you are fully incorrect, and I assume you will do the same about me. “Agree to disagree” is more for people who actually know each other. Bye stranger!