Yeah, the judge published a 300 page ruling in August on what parts of the Google business were or weren’t an illegal monopoly. It’s pretty reasonable to take 3 months to scour through those specific findings to propose specific remedies for how to address the parts that were an illegal monopoly, proportional to those findings, and informed by the actual facts of how the company is organized, what the market dynamics are, and all sorts of economic models.

While I agree with most of the articles points, even if they and the title are nearly all phrased in very hyperbolic language and the extent of the “slowdown” has been rather overstated given that sales are still increasing

I’d argue it’s an outright falsehood. “Slowdown” implies that sales are going down. They’re actually going up, but the pace of acceleration has gone down. The subtitle in the article here:

Fewer people are buying electric cars — the slowdown hints at a problem at the heart of America’s EV push.

This is literally false. More people than ever are buying electric cars.

What has actually happened is that the EV market went from supply-constrained (where manufacturers were building them as fast as they could and selling each one they built to waitlisted customers) to some models becoming demand-constrained (where manufacturers are building them faster than they can sell them).

This is due to a number of things, only some of which apply to the industry as a whole. First, there are some models that just aren’t really that heavily desired by the public, at the price points they’re being sold at. The Ford F-150 is a pretty good example, where Ford misinterpreted the demand from people who signed up on the waitlist, and then chose to prioritize the highest priced trim levels (rather than the entry level F-150 Lightning). So even if people are interested in the entry-level $50,000 F-150 Lightning still have to wait (and oh, by the way, Ford is raising the price to $55,000) while the $90,000 models pile up in dealer lots.

Second, dealers are actively sabotaging EV sales. Everyone I know who has tried to buy an EV from a traditional dealer has been steered towards a hybrid or a traditional ICE vehicle, and sales staff seem to be intentionally ignorant about the EV models sold by their dealership. The EV maintenance model is a threat to dealer business models, where service/maintenance is a very important part of their revenue, so the incentives of the dealer aren’t lined up with the incentives of the manufacturer.

Third, the traditional automakers released their EVs into some headwinds, because interest rates have increased, and Tesla had the profit margins to simply be able to drop prices in a way to make the newest non-Tesla EVs seem like a bad deal in comparison. The average Tesla transaction dropped from $65k in October 2022 to $50k in October 2023, with big price cuts on almost all of its models.

So electric vehicle sales are up. The difficulties that some manufacturers have even in this climate of sales going up is, in many cases, specific to those makes and those models.

Do we know that for sure? What if the triggering event was secret dealings between Altman and Nadella?

I have no idea how likely that is, but the original messaging around Altman’s firing seemed to leave open the possibility that this was about conflicts of interest. The messaging since seems to have contradicted that, though, so who knows.

I would choose a larger screen over that marginal difference in dpi every day of the week.

Yes, but you’re not addressing my point that the price for the hardware isn’t actually bad, and that people who complain would often just prefer to buy hardware with lower specs for a lower price.

The simple fact is that if you were to try to build a MacBook killer and try to compete on Apple’s own turf by matching specs, you’d find that the entry level Apple devices are basically the same price as other laptops you could configure with similar specs, because Apple’s baseline/entry level has a pretty powerful CPU/GPU and high resolution displays. So the appropriate response is not that they overcharge for what they give, but that they make choices that are more expensive for the consumer, which is a subtle difference that I’ve been trying to explain throughout this thread.

You cannot compare an app that runs on two different OS.

Why not? Half of the software I use is available on both Linux and MacOS, and frankly a substantial amount of what most people do is in browser anyway. If the software runs better on one device over another, that’s a real world difference that can be measured. If you’d prefer to use Passmark or whatever other benchmark you’d like you use, you’ll still see be able to compare specific CPUs.

This is a £1400 laptop from scan V’s £1500 macbook air currently.

Ah, I see where some of the disconnect is. I’m comparing U.S. prices, where identical Apple hardware is significantly cheaper (that 15" Macbook Air starts at $1300 in the U.S., or £1058).

And I can’t help but notice you’ve chosen a laptop with a worse screen (larger panel with lower resolution). Like I said, once you actually start looking at High DPI screens on laptops you’ll find that Apple’s prices are actually pretty cheap. 15 inch laptops with at least 2600 pixels of horizontal resolution generally start at higher prices. It’s fair to say you don’t need that kind of screen resolution, but the price for a device with those specs is going to be higher.

The CPU benchmarks on that laptop’s CPU are also slightly behind the 15" Macbook Air, too, even held back by not having fans for managing thermals.

There’s a huge market for new computers that have lower prices and lower performance than Apple’s cheapest models. That doesn’t mean that Apple’s cheapest models are a bad price for what they are, as Dell and Lenovo have plenty of models that are roughly around Apple’s price range, unless and until you start adding memory and storage. Thus, the backwards engineered pricing formula is that it’s a pretty low price for the CPU/GPU, and a very high price for the Storage/Memory.

All of the PC components can be upgraded at the cost of the part + labour.

Well, that’s becoming less common. Lots of motherboards are now relying on soldered RAM, and a few have started relying on soldered SSDs, too.

Except the boot process on a non apple PC is open software.

For the most part, it isn’t. The typical laptop you buy from the major manufacturers (Lenovo, HP, Dell) have closed-source firmware. They all end up supporting the open UEFI standard, but the implementation is usually closed source. Having the ability to flash new firmware that is mostly open source but with closed source binary blobs (like coreboot) or fully open source (like libreboot) gets closer to the hardware at startup, but still sits on proprietary implementations.

There’s some movement to open source more and more of this process, but it’s not quite there yet. AMD has the OpenSIL project and has publicly committed to open sourcing a functional firmware for those chips by 2026.

Asahi uses the open source m1n1 bootloader to load a U-boot to load desktop Linux bootloaders like GRUB (which generally expect UEFI compatibility), as described here:

• The SecureROM inside the M1 SoC starts up on cold boot, and loads iBoot1 from NOR flash
• iBoot1 reads the boot configuration in the internal SSD, validates the system boot policy, and chooses an “OS” to boot – for us, Asahi Linux / m1n1 will look like an OS partition to iBoot1.
• iBoot2, which is the “OS loader” and needs to reside in the OS partition being booted to, loads firmware for internal devices, sets up the Apple Device Tree, and boots a Mach-O kernel (or in our case, m1n1).
• m1n1 parses the ADT, sets up more devices and makes things Linux-like, sets up an FDT (Flattened Device Tree, the binary devicetree format), then boots U-Boot.
• U-Boot, which will have drivers for the internal SSD, reads its configuration and the next stage, and provides UEFI services – including forwarding the devicetree from m1n1.
• GRUB, booting as a standard UEFI application from a disk partition, works like GRUB on any PC. This is what allows distributions to manage kernels the way we are used to, with grub-mkconfig and /etc/default/grub and friends.
• Finally, the Linux kernel is booted, with the devicetree that was passed all the way from m1n1 providing it with the information it needs to work.

If you compare the role of iBoot (proprietary Apple code) to the closed source firmware in the typical Dell/HP/Acer/Asus/Lenovo booting Linux, you’ll see that it’s basically just line drawing at a slightly later stage, where closed-source code hands off to open-source code. No matter how you slice it, it’s not virtualization, unless you want to take the position that most laptops can only run virtualized OSes.

I think you mean that Apple uses its own memory more effectively then a windows PC does.

No, I mean that when you spec out a base model Macbook Air at $1,199 and compare to similarly specced Windows laptops, whose CPUs/GPUs can deliver comparable performance on benchmarks, and a similar quality display built into the laptop, the Macbook Air is usually cheaper. The Windows laptops tend to become cheaper when you’re comparing Apple to non-Apple at higher memory and storage (roughly 16GB/1TB), but the base model Macbooks do compare favorably on price.

Can you run that outside of a virtual box?

It’s not virtualization. It’s actually booted and runs on bare metal, same as the way Windows runs on a normal Windows computer: a proprietary closed UEFI firmware handles the boot process but boots an OS from the “hard drive” portion of non-volatile storage (usually an SSD on Windows machines). Whether you run Linux or Windows, that boot process starts the same.

Asahi Linux is configured so that Apple’s firmware loads a Linux bootloader instead of booting MacOS.

And wouldn’t it be a lot cheaper to just build your own PC rather than pay the premium for the apple logo?

Apple’s base configurations are generally cheaper than similarly specced competitors, because their CPU/GPUs are so much cheaper than similar Intel/AMD/Nvidia chips. The expense comes from exorbitant prices for additional memory or storage, and the fact that they simply refuse to use cheaper display tech even in their cheapest laptops. The entry level laptop has a 13 inch 2560x1600 screen, which compares favorably to the highest end displays available on Thinkpads and Dells.

If you’re already going to buy a laptop with a high quality HiDPI display, and are looking for high performance from your CPU/GPU, it takes a decent amount of storage/memory for a Macbook to overtake a similarly specced competitor in price.

The equity is merely an estimate; it’s no longer a traded company so a public valuation is not applicable.

Even for private companies, though, the valuation matters for all sorts of events that might happen in the meantime: employees with equity still might be forced to sell if they quit their job, so that value ends up actually supporting real transactions trading equity for cash, income tax will look to the fair value at the time of vesting (or grant, in some cases).

And the debt is secured by the $19B valuation, so it’s not in addition to the equity; the company is “worth” $19B but caries a debt burden of $13B making it’s liquidation value $6B

I don’t think this is right. In a typical leveraged buyout, the debt is secured by the assets of the company itself, not by the equity in the company. In other words, the money is owed by Twitter Inc. (and secured by what Twitter owns), not by Twitter’s shareholders (and not secured by the shares themselves).

The old owners got $44 billion. $13 billion came from lenders, not new shareholders. New shareholders agreed to the deal because it allowed them to pony up less money for 100% ownership of the corporation, but the corporation itself is now more burdened with debt. The enterprise value, however, is shareholder equity plus debt, so the enterprise value itself doesn’t change with the debt. That’s why I added the total debt to the total valuation of the equity.

If the equity is worth $19 billion, and the debt is worth $13 billion, that’s a drop of $44 billion to $32 billion. Still hilarious, although not as dramatic.

That’s a driver for Apple hardware running in a non-Apple OS. That’s different from tricking an Apple OS into running non-Apple hardware.

As long as no one is getting hurt I don’t really see the problem.

It’d be hard to actually meet that premise, though. People are getting hurt.

Child abuse imagery is used as both a currency within those circles to incentivize additional distribution, which means there is a demand for ongoing and new actual abuse of victims. Extending that financial/economic analogy, seeding that economy with liquidity, in a financial sense, might or might not incentivize the creation of new authentic child abuse imagery (that requires a child victim to create). That’s not as clear, but what is clear is that it would reduce the transaction costs of distributing existing child abuse imagery, which is a form of re-victimizing those who have already been abused.

Child abuse imagery is also used as a grooming technique. Normalization of child sexual activity is how a lot of abusers persuade children to engage in sexual acts. Providing victimless “seed” material might still result in actual abuse happening down the line.

If the creation of AI-generated child abuse imagery begins to give actual abusers and users of real child abuse imagery cover, to where it becomes more difficult to investigate the crime or secure convictions against child rapists, then the proliferation of this technology would make it easier to victimize additional children without consequences.

I’m not sure what the latest research is on the extent to which viewing and consuming child porn would lead to harmful behavior down the line (on the one hand, maybe it’s a less harmless outlet for unhealthy urges, but on the other hand, it may feed an addictive cycle that results in net additional harm to society).

I’m sure there are a lot of other considerations and social forces at play, too.

It’s not even swipes. It’s an overlay showing which potential swipes have are recommended by your chosen recommenders (who can’t message or interact with any users). The first step of actually choosing to swipe left or right remains with the user.

Training AI models takes a lot of development on the software side, and is computationally intense on the hardware side. Loading a shitload of data into the process, and letting the training algorithms dig down on how to value each of billions or even trillions of parameters is going to take a lot of storage space, memory, and actual computation through ASICs dedicated to that task.

Using pre-trained models, though, is a less computationally intensive task. Once the parameters are defined on that huge training set, that model can be applied by software that just takes the parameters already defined in training and applies it to smaller data sets.

So I would expect the AI/ML chips in actual phones would continue to benefit from AI development, including models developed many chip generations later.

Google has a great track record at fulfilling its promises of support, but a terrible track record of giving un-promised support. So when they promise support, that should go into the “good track record” column.

Most of the normal apps on the phone are using AI on the edges.

Image processing has come a long way using algorithms trained through those AI techniques. Not just the postprocessing of pictures already taken, like unblurring faces, removing unwanted background people, choosing a better frame of a moving picture, white balance/color profile or noise reduction, but also in the initial capture of the image: setting the physical focus/exposure on recognizable subjects, using software-based image stabilization in longer exposed shots or in video, etc. Most of these functions are on-device AI using the AI-optimized hardware on the phones themselves.

On-device speech recognition, speech generation, image recognition, and music recognition has come a long way in the last 5 years, too. A lot of that came from training on models using big, robust servers, but once trained, executing the model on device only requires the AI/ML chip on the phone itself.

In other words, a lot of these apps were already doing these things before on-device AI chips started showing up in 2013 or so. But the on-device chips have made all these things much, much better, especially in the last 5 years when almost all phones started coming with dedicated hardware for these tasks.

Because this instance doesn’t use downvotes. The default interface doesn’t show downvoting, and attempts to downvote through another interface are literally discarded by the server.

I’m gonna push back against that defeatist attitude that things aren’t worth doing if success can’t be guaranteed. First off, as a general matter it’s still doing because we don’t want that one-way ratchet where only one side occasionally tries while the other will always bring their A game and pull off a few upsets, for an overall winning record. I think that most progressives/liberals are unnecessarily handicapping themselves by not showing up for every fight.

Second, specific to this type of regulation, the “cost of doing business” issue doesn’t even really apply. If the punishment for violating a regulation is a fine, then maybe you pay a few fines and it works out. But that’s not generally how the FCC works, because although they do have the power to issue fines, the big thing they have is the power to actually order compliance with their rules.

If the punishment for not building a house to code is a thousand dollars in fines, that’s not going to stop home builders when they’re making hundreds of thousands in profit per building. But if the punishment for not building a house to code is you’re not allowed to sell it until you tear it down and do it right, well, then we’re talking about a punishment that cuts hundreds of thousands of dollars into lost profits/revenue.

The FCC’s regulations are more like that. If the FCC orders the ISPs that “oh that contract where you’re accepting money in exchange for fast lane access is illegal, so you can’t do that anymore,” that now-illegal contract between two big businesses turns into a more complicated effort of lawyers figuring out what they’re supposed to do. Does the other side still pay, if they’re not getting anything in return? Or if the FCC says that a particular QoS rule on their routers needs to be removed, do the network engineers go back to the drawing board to implement their own traffic shaping stuff that does comply with the regs?

That might be, but the tug back and forth at least gives the ISPs pause before going full bore into engineering (or contracting for) non-neutral arrangements. Why invest the time, money, and effort into something that is only sometimes legal?

Commissioner Anna Gomez was sworn in yesterday. Up until then, the FCC has been deadlocked 2-2 between Democrats and Republicans, so the FCC has been unable to push net neutrality.

They just announced that with their 3-2 majority, one of their top priorities is to get Net Neutrality regs passed. This is an important step, announced like literally the first day they’ve had control of the commission.

Where I am, electricity is pretty cheap, but natural gas is tremendously cheaper per jule… so we can actually pay less by using the “inefficient” fuel for our home.

Most of the push towards rapid adoption of heat pumps is happening in Europe, where geopolitical developments (to put it mildly) caused gas prices to spike last winter. The nature of the natural gas logistics means that different continents can have wildly different prices (unlike petroleum, where you can always throw it on a ship and send it from where it’s cheap to where it’s expensive), so a lot of European countries are seeing these debates play out against the backdrop of their own energy markets. Germany passed a law this year that would phase out new gas furnace installations, so that’s why a lot of the debate is happening with a focus on German markets.

Whether (or how quickly) a transition to heat pumps pays for itself in euros will depend a lot on what happens in the future to gas and electricity prices.