Google or any open source map product. And actually, if we use the SCOTUS approved DOJ v MSFT consent decree as precedent, any app that can't use this private API component would be an impacted party.

I'm an antitrust nerd - 20+ years since I made my first PACER account as a teenager to get documents from interesting cases..

95% of what people call "anticompetitive" or "monopolistic" has no legal bearing. People don't know the legal definition of those words and bandy them about based on vibes.

This however, is a very very clear case of violations of precedent. If we look at Microsoft's final judgement https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/final-judgment-133 see F(1)(a), H(2)(b), while these stipulations haven't been applied to Apple, if I were in a market dominant position, I'd be super careful about capricious restrictions like the example undocumented API, and behavior that mimics patterns of activity that were seen as actionably sanctionable to similar market dominant forces

I wasn’t previously aware of Ukrainians flying drones directly into helicopter’s rotors, but that does make sense.

I obviously know very little about battlefield armaments so forgive the potentially stupid question - but have drones made combat helicopters obsolete?

> have drones made combat helicopters obsolete?

Which drones?

Helicopters are vulnerable to small quadcopter drones when landing and taking off. This limits some traditional uses of helicopters (anything that involves landing in enemy territory becomes much more risky) but still leaves others (shooting missiles at surface targets).

Helicopters are very effective at shooting down large fixed-wing drones.

Helicopters are very effective at sinking drone boats without air defenses, but are in turn very vulnerable to drone boats equipped with SAMs.

That's like asking if bullets made infantry obsolete. As long as there is a role for attack helicopter on the battlefield, then it is not obsolete, just more vulnerable during its missions.

> That's like asking if bullets made infantry obsolete

You sure it's not asking if bullets made spears obsolete"?

Which part of the CHIPS act says companies receiving funds have to give the government 10% of the company to continue receiving funds?

Section 9902 of the act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to provide financial assistance to "covered entities"

One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly, which is exactly what the administration has done.

> One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly

The money was already granted. Trump threatened the CEO personally and then they came to this agreement ex post facto.

> One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly, which is exactly what the administration has done

You can? So some years later they can change it again? Where's the trust?

The takeaway is the next Democrat president should just declare a public transit emergency and start building while the courts squabble. Same for housing reform. Same for climate change and shutting down coal power plants—once you shut it down and take out the turbines, it doesn’t matter what the courts say.

Yes, they should.

However in case of democrats president Supreme Court will be surprisingly fast on issuing emergency decisions and stopping executive actions…

They should then just ignore the courts decisions they don’t like like the current administration does.

Where in the bill passed by Congress does it say taking funds entitles the government to 10% of the company 3 years after the fact?

> company 3 years after the fact?

Intel hasn't gotten most of the money they were awarded. Even the Biden administration were hesitant in doling it out, because of concerns that Intel could deliver. That's why out of frustration, the previous CEO became vocal in saying "We still haven't gotten any money yet!" and was openly frustrated about it.

Lip-Bu Tan, in the last quarterly earnings signaled a decent likelihood of not developing 14A (and thus halting much of the semiconductor infrastructure they implied they would need the CHIPS money for). So it's perfectly fair for the government to say "We're not giving you the rest of the money."

What this deal does is release the rest of the money, but with strings attached.

There were always strings attached - even with the prior administration. The strings have merely changed, and Intel benefits by actually getting the money now vs a long drawn out process.

Did ChatGPT also disable his vehicle?

I've been advised by my ChatGPT lawyer to say "No."

Is his vehicle disabled? You realize you can show any content you want on the screen of your tesla, right?

Great metaphor

This is incredible. Thank you so much for making this so I never have to explain this again

This is sick yo

It’s called team building. You can believe in it or not. You can join a company that values that, or not.

Where is the line between team and cult?

Cults are a subset of teams.

> Where is the line between team and cult?

Typically employers pay you and cults don't.

Why do you need to draw a line? Can there be good cults and bad teams?

Both have implicit contracts, and a contract requires consideration on both sides. The parties define the value of the consideration, so you can have a junior cult member who feels they are getting good value for what they pay, or a SW dev at an insurance company who feels they don't. I also don't see much difference in your ability to affect your situation if you are unhappy with the current state.

The whole idea of a cult is negative.

Its like saying why cant there be good shark attacks on surfers.

Defining traits of cults are that they try to brainwash you, destroy your identity and replace it with one the cult approves of.

This can happen to various degrees of severity.

Initially wanted to say I’m impressed they got it on the first launch

But, couldn’t specifically tell if this was indeed the first launch or not, and perhaps there were some private failures before - anyone know?