Is this a form of mechanomorphism, where we try to reason about how human cognition might work by drawing an analogy from how computers work (specifically, overfitting in ANNs) and try to apply it back to humans?
Spot on. To quote Marshall Rosenberg quoting Hannah Arendt:
In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, which documents the war crimes trial of Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt quotes Eichmann saying that he and his fellow officers had their own name for the responsibility-denying language they used. They called it Amtssprache, loosely translated into English as “office talk” or “bureaucratese.” For example, if asked why they took a certain action, the response would be, “I had to.” If asked why they “had to,” the answer would be, “Superiors’ orders.” “Company policy.” “It was the law.”
From Nonviolent Communication, page 19 on “Denial of Responsibility”.
Sad to see there's a lot of office talk being used in this thread.
According to the founder of Co-Star's linkedin profile, they raised "$6 million of investment from the venture firms behind companies like Glossier, Allbirds, and Everlane".
On Co-Star's website they have positive press reviews from The New Yorker, The Verge, Cosmo, Vanity Fair, Gizmodo, New York Times, HuffPo, Drudge Report, Newsweek, Financial Times, Vogue, and more.
It's obvious that Co-Star app is being pumped as a VC darling and someone wants to eventually get their money back.
Apple is playing their part in the $$ ecosystem by gatekeeping competition.
Power companies do charge different rates depending on what electronics are used.
Energy utility rate structures are both complex and unique to the individual company, but at a high level different classes of consumer pay different rate plans, such as residential vs. commercial/industrial vs. agricultural, and which is ultimately determined by the type of and quantity of certain electronic devices installed on premise as is normal for that class.
With that said, as a residential consumer there is little chance that you could ever legally or physically install one of the devices at your home that would necessitate being charged a CI or agricultural rate.
And interestingly enough those rates are all regulated by very heavy weight local/state and federal regulatory commissions.
Because it's easier to garner clicks for ad impressions by making bold claims about the amazing (unproven) future benefits of a minor scientific discovery than by presenting readers with the actual science.
"Now if Spotify were to be banned from the AppStore, how else would you receive its service?"
The Spotify Web Player works perfectly fine on iPhone's mobile Safari. No, it's not a native app, but it exists as an alternative delivery method for the service.
That's disingenuous. How well would it scale for a musician to personally handle depositing checks from millions of fans? There is a very good reason that many musicians become involved with labels, promoters, distributors, etc., which is to free up the time of the artist to focus on what they are actually interested in doing: writing and playing music.
Also, in any OS X application with multiple windows you can use Command-` (i.e. Command + backtick key) to switch between windows of the active application.
If Apple blocked fart apps of third-party developers for the sake of... I don't know what, quality or decency, then people would complain Apple are being censors.
Regarding Shoemaker, maybe Apple hired him to direct the App Store because he can run a massive online marketplace, and not because he's a talented or creative app developer.
No it is not. The status quo is that no one has yet made any binding decisions, and the telecom operators will try to get away with what they can until the FCC slaps them down.
Google just succeeded in getting Verizon to agree to net neutrality on the wired internet in exchange for removing any possibility of net neutrality on the wireless internet (which Google claims is the future of internet).
No they didn't. This is the same thing that happens any time anyone gets riled up about a patent. Someone glanced at the title or an image (in this case) in a patent application and assumes that is what the patent is for. In this case it is not, which is clear if you read the actual claims of the patent. The image is one of many existing third-party app screens used in this patent application to show apps where the invention in question (location-based notifications) might find use.
Apple did not "just do some Evil" here. This is simply bad reporting about someone's mistaken mis-observation. I don't know why, but when it comes to Apple, a lot of people's normal inhibitions for shoddy reporting become spectacularly lowered.