If anyone was still thinking about companies as saints, then this is a good moment to reconsider that. (This also applies to the Apple folks here).

Apple fan here - I have no illusions about them being a saint. I like that their profit motive aligns with my interests. Charge me a lot for quality and simplicity.

Google makes money not from selling me a good product, but by selling my information, and Microsoft seems determined to confuse and frustrate, profiting from lockin rather than quality.

Yes, I'm concerned that Apple is selling ads.

The alignment between their profit and your interests ceases to exist the moment they separate you from your money, and you become trapped in their ecosystem.

> I like that their profit motive aligns with my interests.

It's a common expression I see around here, but you do not know their profit motives. You only know their marketing and hold a perception of them. They are not the same thing, there cannot be alignment.

> By removing audio jacks from everything Apple is not my friend.

I agree that this was a terrible decision (although as a non-Apple user, I wouldn't care except that so many non-Apple companies followed Apple's lead here).

But to be fair, that's a product design decision, not really one with moral implications.

And most definitely not from Bluetooth

This is a strawman of Apple fans - the reasoning behind liking Apple is that, in theory, your incentives and their incentives align in a way that can never be true of e.g. Google. Apple makes money by making hardware/software that is worth the price premium, Google makes money by making me a more desirable target for advertisers.

> as would most of you.

I think we are okay with selling of the soul, it was the rhetoric that they were good, honest, and open before hand. This comes across as just another VC marketing pitch where greed underlies everything in the end. That is where the sourness comes from.

Call it a pivot.

"Do no evil"

Sathoshi Nakamoto's soul remains intact.

He probably died. That's the most likely explanation.

Another explanation is that he has a lot more bitcoin outside the large stack and moving the big stack would crash the market as a whole.

How much is a whale? Not everyone needs to be a billionaire. He could have a couple million anonymously, and a nice full time job, and be under the radar.

I want to believe this, rather than he lost the key or that it's that other guy who has chosen not to be anonymous.

Or probably they wouldn’t have survived given how much resource they need to operate.

If they were not called OpenAI probably such blog posts would be written.

Given how much ahead they are, they can safely rename the company if they wish to do so.