It's a cute comparison but the stickers Gruber's referring to (CPU etc) are unnoticeable when you're actually using a laptop, they're static and out of the way and would never distract you or disrupt your work and they're not wasting your screen space. They also don't compromise your privacy or track and time every possible interaction.
So while they have the commonality "they are ads" they are really nothing at all alike.
The difference is you can trust the compiler without knowing what System.out.println("Hello, World!") is going to ultimately look like, and the vast majority of what compilers output will never need human intervention to fix something or human oversight to ensure correctness and fitness for purpose.
I worry about what would happen if CloudFlare decided I was an adversary, a massive amount of the internet would become completely inaccessible if I couldn't get past their annoying gateway!
> I will never understand the decision-making process that led to "Let's build an awesome VR headset that can't do gaming".
FOMO, someone else being successful in VR (and now in glasses) is a nightmare scenario for Apple because it's not their platform. They've got a lot to fear from someone else owning the platform, having written the playbook on how that platform would be controlled and exploited at everyone else's expense.
Imagine if Apple doesn't make their glasses: Meta keeps selling truckloads of them, as they get more powerful the smartphone becomes an optional accessory and then an unnecessary one, eventually they become an alternative to a smartphone and an app platform for third party devs.
It's the same story with VR, Apple does nothing and risks Meta or Steam building a viable platform where people want to use software instead of on their iOS devices, until the hardware can replace iOS devices entirely. (although VR is certainly more of a moonshot)
Allowing third-party "app stores" is completely useless when all apps must be approved by the operating system company.
It's also being abused by google (technically, will be, very soon), I guess they saw that since the legal framework for this kind of thing has now been written, they can do it too.
There was no oversight. The EU told Apple the CTC did not comply with the law. Apple's new scheme still seems bad but I don't think this is the end of it.
Google just got fined €430 million for a very similar fee scheme, practically copied from Apple, so it's highly unlikely that Apple will get away with it forever. Theoretically Apple should have a monster fine brewing since they're a repeat offender and it should be retroactively applied.
Prescient in some ways but also rendered utterly obsolete by AI...
> You can improve the quality of your code, and if you do, the rewards for yourself and for Microsoft will be immense. The hardest part is to decide that you want to write perfect code.
... this is effectively insubordination these days lmao.
Ehh, more like Starlink was a thing they said they'd do to justify the investment at the time. Just like they said they'd build an assembly line mass producing Falcon 1's for small launch market, or send a Starship full of artists around the Moon. The first prototypes were three years later.
What are you people arguing about here? This is exactly what is argued here, i.e. that Alphabet is like an investment fund? They had a hunch and it paid off, didn't they? I.e. you're making the point for the argument made?
That 2015 Alphabet was the tail end of the Google X era where the founders were making crazy conviction bets that weee only thinly related to their core area, very different from current Alphabet that really only does make considered strategic investments.
All energy generated on earth contributes to global warming, even solar panels which decrease Earth's albedo. If you care about climate change and the earth you should want the datacenters to be in space.
The earth is limited in the amount of thermal energy it can radiate.
Ah yes, burn thousands of tonnes of methane (assuming Spacex) to launch a data centre satellite into an orbit, then burn thousands more to maintain it and update compute or burn the entire thing in the upper atmosphere, to avoid contributing to global warming by not burning all of that fuel and dry mass.
From an energy POV, the chemical launch energy required for orbital insertion is 900GJ per satellite (when amortized) whereas the satellite produces 18,900GJ over its 5-yr lifetime, and far more if it lasts longer.
So while they have the commonality "they are ads" they are really nothing at all alike.
reply