Apple isn't Sony. They make an arm and a leg on their hardware.

When they switched to x86, it didn't take long for them to release Boot Camp, so they could take Windows users' money, too.

They also make an arm and a leg on services, which is why its not in their interest to make it so you cant use them.

Of course they will. Why would you pay for icloud storage you cant use?

That statement is true for the users that both bought and didn't buy a Macbook (with Linux support). The difference is, the one who bought has paid money for the Macbook.

I am not an Apple user. Do you _have_ to pay for iCloud if you buy the laptop? I don't think so.

Windows dual boot meant millions of potential switchers, if not for anything else, as a list item to tell them "you could still dual boot".

Asahi-on-Mac would bring in irrelevant numbers for a company of Apple's size.

They could also dual boot windows for Arm. Just like before. Assuming Apple did the boot camp thing again

How does someone end up knowing an extra language they don't need anymore?

Language learning is a fun hobby for some people.

> how do we know the Spanish was translated perfectly, without a massive detail review

You can't. I think that's a large part of why LLMs have caught on much better with programmers: they have ways of making the computer check its own work.

Checking a document is still a laborious manual task. And completely unfulfilling.

And that's the trap. Relying on a "perfectly" crafted test or a LLM to verify what is unknown. Yes, LLMs can be very useful, but perhaps it's best for us to be realistic.

> making the computer check its own work

Kind of like the Spanish teacher telling his students they can grade their own tests, then being surprised that Billy was always giving himself 100%, when he's nowhere near that bright or fluent.

It wouldn't be so bad, if people were more upfront with being unsure or made it clear they were extrapolating from smaller and limited data. But usually, like many of these unusually cocky LLMs, what is too often reported to the public is "perfection" and many inconvenient truths "swept underneath the carpet".

> the pretense posed by the article that the club has no blame.

Remember that these clubs are mostly small, local businesses. Their owners just don't have the technical sophistication to evaluate software security. Or the clout to demand an audit.

Not really, no. The current kerfuffle is primarily over illegal streaming of live sports. The blocks need to be in place very rapidly to have any effect.

Some governments have given rightsholders the ability to order IPs blocked at short notice, and they've caused a lot of collateral damage, making thousands of unrelated sites unreachable.

> Not really, no. The current kerfuffle is primarily over illegal streaming of live sports. The blocks need to be in place very rapidly to have any effect.

They really don't. As has been repeatedly rediscovered in a thousand other cases: 1) a modest amount of friction will make most people not do it, 2) you will never stop everyone, and collateral damage will be too high ("the optimal amount of fraud is not zero", https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra... ), and 3) "piracy is a service problem".

Some of the most effective mechanisms in history for shifting people away from copyright infringement have been iTunes and Netflix. Everything on both is readily available for free, but people for the most part don't. And when they do, more often than not it's a service problem: "use this offline", "take a screenshot for commentary", "they took the content down and now it's not available anywhere", "not available at all in some regions of the world".

Are you kidding? There was a large swing to Trump amongst Latinos in your last election.

I have no idea why people assume immigrants are pro-immigration. They're pro-themselves.

Latinos are hardly a monolith, though oddly the people demanding sensitivity don't seem to be aware.

> GP ties negative properties to entire groups without differenciation, this is by definition racist.

Only if they're racial groups, and you're literally the only one trying to box people up by their skin colour.

> largely been workers for jobs the Dutch won't do.

The Dutch were happy to do those jobs 50 years ago.

After every single "jobs the natives won't do", there's an unspoken "for the dogshit pay we offer."

No they weren't, 50 years ago is when they were working very hard to get people in from Turkey/North Africa to do those jobs because they wanted to pay peanuts and the natives had options.

These are all hyper exploitative industries based on capital exploiting the poor. Which is something we both agree on.

You'd have to stop importing the things you're not paying people enough to produce, otherwise your own products will be more expensive than the next nation over that has no qualms about poor pay for agriculture or whatever.

It all sounds great until the last 40+ years goes away, with the apples year round and bananas, etc.

Going back to just what you can produce in your country is gunna be a rude awakening for billions.

People wouldn’t be willing to pay those prices for food, so they’d just end up importing it all.

You could force people to accept the low wages by removing all welfare but that has its own problems.

> not contributing to musk's empire

You are if you've got a 401(k), just not voluntarily.

The SpaceX IPO is basically a scam designed to force pension funds to buy in before the stock price falls to where it should be.

Not meaningfully, not yet, and pension funds are entirely capable, like the SP500, of choosing not to invest in SPCX if they don't want to.

Islamists fight to be the oppressors, not to help the oppressed.

or put simply, just rebelling against any attempt at modernising muslim societies. Anwar Sadat comes to mind.