Having worked at Apple and similarly giant companies, the idea that "they have enough money to do it" is incredibly naive. Rewriting all the basic software primitives of the iPhone, or the Mac, or iCloud, or CloudKit, or choose whatever massive surface area this legislation impacts, is not a matter of simply spending enough. Doing so requires the time and attention of the very few subject matter experts who are able to competently do it. The true cost is to your strategy, your business plan, and your product roadmap.
So it becomes a purely business decision: Do we risk a 10% global revenue penalty to release this globally, do we release this everywhere the DMA does not apply, or do we simply not build it? And make no mistake, even if Apple moved heaven and earth to try to comply with DMA they are STILL RISKING the full 10% penalty if the EU decides against them.
Releasing the model to bad actors at the same time as the major OS, browser, and security companies would be one idea. But some might consider that "messed up" too, whatever you mean by that. But in terms of acting in the public benefit, it seems consistent to work with companies that can make significant impact on users' security. The stated goal of Project Glasswing is to "secure the world's most critical software," not to be affirmative action for every wannabe out there.
The FTC article links to the federal complaint[0] which names the third-party data recipient as Clarifai, Inc.
"In September 2014, the CEO of Clarifai, Inc. e-mailed one of OkCupid’s founders requesting that Humor Rainbow give Clarifai, Inc. (i.e., the Data Recipient) access to large datasets of OkCupid photos."
Former Apple employee here. This is a deeper quirk of Apple culture than one would guess.
Each and every Radar (Apple's internal issue tracker is called Radar, and each issue is called a Radar) follows a state machine, going from the untriaged state to the done state. One hard-coded state in this is Verify. Each and every bug, once Fixed, cannot move to Closed without passing through the Verify state. It seems like a cool idea on the surface. It means that Apple assumes and demands that everything must be verified as fixed (or feature complete) by someone. Quite the corporate value to hold the line on, and it goes back decades.
I seriously hated the Verify state. It caused many pathologies. Imagine trying to run a burndown of your sprint when zero of the Radars are closed, because they have to be verified in production before being closed, meaning you cannot verify until after the release. Another pathology is that lots (thousands and thousands) of Radars end up stranded in Verify. Many, many engineers finish their fix, check it in, it gets released and then they move on. This led to a pathology that the writer of this post got caught up in: There is lots of "org health" reporting that goes out showing how many Radars are unverified and how long your Radars stay in the unverified state on average. A lot of teams simply close Radars that remain unverified for some amount of time because they are being "graded" on this.
You are indeed missing a TON. A lot of Open Claw users don't give it everything. We give it specific access to a group of things it needs to do the things we want. If I want an agent to sit there 24/7 maximizing uptime of my service, I give it access to certain data, the GitHub repo with PR privileges, and maybe even permissions to restart the service. All of this has to be very thoughtful and intentional. The idea that the only "useful" way to use Open Claw is to give it everything is a straw man.
I have given the “never trust the judgment of someone who says it should be a one-line fix” so many times I am basically doxxing myself with this comment.
So among Harris voters, the assassination was about as popular as a Trump policy. And yet here we have people trying to say it's popular among lefties. We do not deserve nice things.
Put simply: It is in the national interest to have the world's most talented technologists here. It is yet more in the national interest that they work here, for us, and not for our enemies. One of the best ways we can compete with China is to attract their best and brightest with our free society and high wages.
Why would tribal land management be "natural" but not more recent land management? It seems more like we just need to decide how we want the land to be and burn or not burn to achieve our goals.
And there it is. This narrative that immigration hasn't been a constant and deciding factor in the development of the West (and pretty much everywhere else) is so wild. Stability of an insular population is the absolute exception of history.
In the U.S., around 86% of kids graduate high school[1], around 63% of high school graduates go to 4-year colleges[2], and around 64% of them graduate within 6 years[3].
By that logic around 35% of 24-year-old Americans have bachelor degrees. More than a third, but not by much.
Do you fail at driving if you touch your brakes? I don't think so. The best drivers in the world certainly don't seem to think so. It's just one of the control inputs to driving your vehicle. Staffing levels are a resource company execs can increase or decrease as they see fit for the company. This idea that they should only hire someone if they predict they will need them forever is frankly bizarre and indicates a profound misunderstanding of what shareholders expect of their execs.
The true outrage isn't that the 0.01% of recipe seekers who like to read a story and get served 77 ads as they scroll through and laugh/cry before the recipe get these recipes high in Google's search results. It's that the rest of us who HATE ALL THAT also get these abhorrent search results.