That is a valid paranoia,

but also, not the kind of subscription the article is about.

Sentiment on AI-generated code being so bad that human code is strongly preferred, and marketed.

Have you requested code written in the most human-readable fashion, with human-readable commenting,

for you to choose to be minified later?

Useless review without discussing the context, and carefully considered, well-scoped prompt you gave(?) it.

For discussion's sake,

They are "forced" if they:

1) want to be cool

or 2) don't want to be uncool

or 3) don't want to spend effort on a technical decision they think doesn't matter to them

iOS is not the Internet anymore than Jitterbug is telephones.

Nobody made such a claim.

If you serve web pages, you likely serve many of your users on their Apple devices. And you can’t support features of the web for those users if Apple doesn’t want them to have those features, and prohibits browsers with other engines that do support them on their App Store, and prohibits other sources of web browsers.

That’s called “gatekeeping”.

Yes you did: "Try shipping a web browser not based on Apple’s browser functionality on iOS. See how free of gatekeeping the internet is."

And no, it isn't. Not supporting certain browser features does not direct traffic or even deny access. So you obviously don't know what gatekeeping is.

Apple is denying access to browsers that support web features they don’t support themselves.

Your argument, or attempt to make an argument, somehow neglects this obvious Apple created and enforced barrier.

It "neglects" a universe of equally irrelevant observations.

A) it’s not irrelevant at all. Perhaps you don’t do web design, or perhaps you restrict your designs to functionality Apple doesn’t actively or passively prohibit.

Then you might not be aware that Apple does not support everything other browsers support. Or takes longer to support some things.

The internet has two ends (at least), media source and media user. Both ends require compatible software for any connection to work or work fully.

B) Of course I omit other irrelevant issues. No need for argumentative non-points.

A suggestion that would help me understand you better:

Instead of simply dismissing points out of hand, respond with reasoned thoughts.

Maybe you have a sensible viewpoint?

I have no issue learning from you.

If you can communicate how Apple blocking alternate browser engines doesn’t actually block other browser’s additional web functionality, please explain your work around.

I would appreciate any solution you have. So would many others.

—-

Apple also prohibits (via there App Store) non-browser apps based on how they use the Internet. So that’s additional gate keeping of Internet functionalit.

—-

Read Apple’s App Store guidelines for developers. Apple is up front and clear about all these restrictions and prohibitions.

I am lost as to what you are trying to claim they allow, that they openly document they don’t allow.

—-

Perhaps you have confused internet functionality with Internet addresses.

Indeed, Apple doesn’t block IPs.

But some kind of software at both ends is still required to communicate across the Internet. And blocking specific kinds of Internet functionality at one end, effectively blocks it from both ends, on their locked down devices.

You have confused "Web functionality" with gatekeeping.

You can use WebKit to visit any site you want; whether it supports every technical feature you might encounter on a site is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that it's a good engine or even competitive. I don't question your objections to missing functionality, and probably agree with all of them. But that is not gatekeeping. That's like saying black-&-white TVs were "gatekeeping" by not showing color, or some Bluetooth speakers are "gatekeeping" by not being stereo.

Anyway, the point is moot because Apple has to allow other browser engines now. If you think it through, this will simply allow Chrome to completely dominate the Web and take us backward to the bad old days of "this site works best on..."

WHEEEE!

Apple is not the Internet, stop allowing your friends, family and colleagues to treat it that way.

Meanwhile, I can't convince my dad that he doesn't need to pay for AOL anymore...

Truthfully, few people know that right now!

They're backfeeding what it's "learning" along the way - whether it's in a smart fashion, we don't know yet.

It’s the whole “MCP” moto right? Basically keep re-feeding in each subsequent prompts the additional requested context?

(I've a recently acquired strong opinion on MCP, beware)

MCP seems to be the idea to expose literally any data source to AI agents as context. E.g, in work/business context: a database, source code, a kanban board; in private context: your photo library, notes, etc. This is good and makes sense.

As a technical "standard" or "protocol" (as it claims to be), it's a total mess, read more here: https://modelcontextprotocol.io. Though I guess they are inventing it as they go.

Nah, that's still considered an ephemeral user session. We're talking about what the service does with what it learns from the failures (and successes) marked by user feedback into the chat, or the app's buttons.

Do you know why people started doing rewrites in other languages?

It's usually to help teach them the other language.

The rewrite part makes it easier for observers to learn and compare/contrast techniques in different environments for themselves.

Why this would ever be criticised, I can't imagine.

Because the language of the week changes often, and learning can be done by solving the problems of today instead of rewriting software into a version that will never be used. I mean... who still uses all the rewrites to ruby?

Even emacs was rewritten to rust ( https://github.com/remacs/remacs ), many hours were spent, and the last actual code commit was 5 years ago.... why not spend that time by making the "normal" emacs better? Or make something new in rust?

I'll say it again for the people struggling to hear in the back: it's for the experience.

Depending on how you use "randomly", they absolutely can..?

I would do it based on the sound of the ball hitting in the audio track during service. Way cheaper ;)