No but Apple has been putting their weight behind services. Some of these services are platform agnostic but they do work best on a Mac. Their success story is the efficiency of the closed ecosystem, something that Android and Windows are converging to.
However, these services revenues (App Store tax, iCloud storage, even the deal with Google) are still anchored to users' loyalty to the platform. So Apple needs users to (1) stay on the platform and (2) buy new devices. Making user experience painful everywhere except for on the newest devices works against (1) and for (2).
That said, Microsoft's trade offs re quality of their software are rather different and their solution is even weirder: high-quality user-facing software is not in competition with their b2b sales, so ok, no reason to spend too many resources on it, but absolutely no evident reason to make it noticeably worse either.
As a result, Microsoft's approach of regressive evolution probably lets Apple get away with almost not caring or even going the path of slower regressive evolution.
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to bring up laws, when the current administration really doesn’t adhere to them? Congress today barely does any work, Supreme Court is entirely partisan, and the president is taking bribes in the open.
In any case it’s not the deportation that most people necessarily have an issue with, it’s how they go about doing it. They even killed citizens in the process. Obama deported quite a few.
Can’t believe we have people who unironically say things like “illegal citizens need to go”. For shame. You probably are one too, would you leave first?
I’m sure they showed up, but if you compare to the entire market size it’s a small size like maybe 10%. They should have calibrated their expectations, but they didn’t. Also the battery life on them aren’t as good as the regular.
Hmmph, well fine then. Use that foldable phone technology everyone else apparently wants to give me a "normal" phone I can fold in half. Now everyone's happy!
Sometimes I feel like “shareholder first” mentality has gone a bit too far. Most of the majority shareholders are a handful of people who have too much money, they don’t really put in any work, but are more than happy to put people out of work if it meant they’d get a bit more money.
I love Kagi, the results are great, the assistant is great, and I like customizing the search result UI as well to look as clean as possible. Its like having OG Google back.
Depends, I love it and am happy to pay for it out of privacy concerns and supporting a non-monopolist. It's got some neat features that I use all the time that google doesn't have. Is it's search results better than google? Maybe. Maybe not. I do know when I can't find something on kagi, google doesn't either.
> If software is the commodity, what is the bespoke value-added service that can sit on top of all that?
It would be cool if I can brew hardware at home by getting AI to design and 3D print circuit boards with bespoke software. Alas, we are constrained by physics. At the moment.
> I love when leftists are so willing to have such a weak grasp on reality that they're able to convince themselves that the sitting president of the united states ate babies.
Quite a statement to protect the president that claimed immigrants ate cats and dogs, and the base had no problems with it. There are problems with the left, but this is a hypocritical take.
> Something about how the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Well, have you tried to educate them instead of insulting them? Like Carlin said, there are a lot of dumb people out there. But belittling them doesn’t seem to be the solution if you actually want a functioning democracy. Education doesn’t seem to be anywhere near the top priority for the right as that’s too woke these days.
> Ah yes, because claiming that people are eating cats and dogs, something that actually happens in some parts of the world, is the same thing as claiming that the president ate babies.
We are actually saying that the president raped teen girls. Which is something that happens around the world - even happens within the orbit of Trump given the conviction of Epstein.
And when your favored divine-right monarchy comes for their "divine right" with your underage daughters and sons? Will you still be willing to give all for the cause?
I'm going to draft a new theory of sociopolitics called Pedophile-Oriented Ontology. It's when someone's political critique becomes entirely oriented around accusations of pedophilia or lack thereof.
Monarchy? Le bad, because the king could be a pedo!
You didn’t answer the question. Is it because:
1. You think the question isn’t applicable
2. You think doesn’t happen
3. You think justice is served for pedophiles
4. The president didn’t do anything wrong and so none of these discussions are valid
Well in this case it would be "is" rather than "could." Maybe Thiel himself doesn't partake in the forbidden underage fruit (although I don't see why we would rule that out, as it seems to be how the Epstein club binds its members). But then Thiel isn't set up to be the king either, right?
But yes such a critique would be interesting! I think all of Moldbug's florid prose about enlightened monarchism would land much differently if the apogee of that enlightenment isn't some sort of assumed societal grand plan or direction, but is rather just the old base desire for increasingly-immoral perverted debauchery.
Tens of thousands of years of political history and the only known paranoia-fueled scandal and suspicion of the elite being immoral pedophiles that I'm aware of is currently happening in a democracy, because a guy who based his identity on knowing as many other powerful people as possible happened to know many powerful people (really??? no way!), and anti-capitalists are desperate for moral superiority so they're willing to psy-op themselves into thinking it's plausible that every person this guy ever emailed must have been a pedo too.
Monarchy never had any of this nonsense. Bring back King George. We made the wrong choice.
You're saying that monarchies never had perverted debauchery? It sounds like you need to read a little more broadly, rather than just contemporary writings that seek to burn down all of Chesterton's fences.
And keep in mind that the monarchies of old were still constrained by religion, and by the lack of digital communications! What is being pushed today is better characterized as autocracy. The "monarchy" label is merely meant to evoke simpler-seeming times that are comfortably in the past.
Also I think you meant "capitalists" rather than "anti-capitalists". That people who were successful under capitalism want to move to a different system does not imply that their favored system is also capitalist! If monarchy/autocracy is "capitalist" then North Korea is also "capitalist" and the word is meaningless.
(also it seems like you're still in denial about the implications of Epstein's emails, regardless who was or was not partaking in the minors)
> Also I think you meant "capitalists" rather than "anti-capitalists".
No, I'm very much talking about talibanized socialists/communists/whatever they want to particularly call themselves. "Eat the rich" has become "The rich eat babies" because it doesn't matter what you try and get people to believe as long as they align themselves with your side and against the people you don't like. The Big Lie of our times, perhaps?
> I'm very much talking about talibanized socialists/communists/whatever they want to particularly call themselves.
So you're just bashing a strawman that you've pigeonholed all opposition into? Okay then...
We had a previous exchange that I ended up dropping. I was a bit sorry about that because I thought it would have been interesting to critique "universalism" on its own merits, rather than the term generally only being mentioned by its detractors.
(For context here I was reading Moldbug while he was writing, and spent a bunch of time internalizing other reactionary writings. I actually credit Moldbug with my transition from a right-Libertarian to an unaligned libertarian that sees left vs right as mere modes of thinking, each with their own merits)
But after seeing how quickly this conversation went downhill, I'm not sure that conversation would have been terribly productive either!
> So you're just bashing a strawman that you've pigeonholed all opposition into?
If you think radicalized left-wingers are a strawman, you live in a separate universe from mine. Unfortunately, I live in the one where I have to wake up and see flyers around my town unironically claiming Trump ate kids.
I understand. In fact, I've been there - I was working on ecash and cryptography before bitcoin and the bastardization of the term crypto. "Code is law" and all that.
I'm sure some of it is due to getting older, but with open cult-of-personality autocratic authoritarianism (aka fascism) upon us I have become quite conservative. I had been taking a lot for granted about the freedoms we do have, and the position of the Western world. Don't let a desire to make things better goad you into wanting to destroy what we do have.
But regardless, if you recoil from the groupthink of the leftists you should be similarly allergic to the groupthink of the rightists. They have taken up the mantles of so many of our longstanding societal problems, only to be led by outright con men and liars who are doing nothing to actually address those problems. And I don't just mean hate-but-hold-your-nose-for-some-greater-good, but rather hold them in the same exact regard as the leftists. Especially as that red tribe groupthink is now in power, and its results are not pretty.
I want a functioning democracy because we have an entire history of monarchies and dictatorships being far worse. And because I want everyone to have a say, not just a minority of elites who are only human and just as fallible as the rest of us.
reply