Your point doesn't follow logically. If you're a non-resident living in Japan according to Japanese peoples' expectations, why can't you criticize other non-residents who aren't living in a way that's consistent with Japanese peoples' expectations?
Because someone who's not a resident in Japan, and claims to be living here, is fundamentally either also abusing the system, or not actually living here.
> Because someone who's not a resident in Japan, and claims to be living here, is fundamentally either also abusing the system, or not actually living here.
What? No…I am not suddenly forbidden from using the English language because of visa status. What is one supposed to say? Temporarily residing?Extended vacationing?Work-visa-free inhabiting? Come on.
You’re hanging your hat on the OP’s use of the word “living”, which is so weirdly pedantic that I think you’re just looking for a reason to be upset that they had the temerity to defend the rule changes.
For all we know, OP is living here on a perfectly valid visa.
Sure. I think it's meaningful to distinguish someone staying for six months, and someone staying for years; but if that's weirdly pedantic, so be it.
(Maybe it's also a cultural difference?
My native language distinguishes between the kind of "living" somewhere where you're just "staying" somewhere and where that place is the center of your life. I would not use the "I built my life here" verb for a 6mo stay.
Perhaps I'm letting that color my English a bit more than I should.)
In fairness, there are a lot of Japanese people who feel they were not consulted on the scale and scope of "Japanese peoples' expectations". So many such people that they could get a Prime Minister elected. I wouldn't assume that living according to the laws that exist currently means that you're living in accordance with "Japanese peoples' expectations". That's the whole reason the laws are being changed at the moment.
That said, as a foreigner right now the best thing to do is to watch the legal environment as it shifts so that you don't fall afoul of it. And to be extra mindful of adhering to Japanese customs, which boils down to being nice along with things like realizing some places may not look on your tattoos the same way those tattoos are looked on in the West.
It’s not rich to recognise your own ship is sinking and want others to save themselves from sinking theirs. I truly love Japan and the last thing I want is the same cultural dilution to happen here. Deport me if that’s what it takes. Japan must invest in itself and not give in to the temptation of unlimited cheap foreign labor.
Yes, a country should want to keep out people with negative fiscal impact and bring in people with a positive fiscal impact. Isn’t that obvious?
By all means bring in people to run businesses in Japan. Legitimate businesses, not visa mills. This increase in capital requirements stamps out the visa mills.
> This increase in capital requirements stamps out the visa mills.
No, it doesn't. The rich people abusing the system just deposit more money and get their checkmark. Small businesses cannot raise and float this kind of cash quickly.
Also, the policy change is being applied retroactively to visa renewal applications that had already been filed, before the policy change was even announced. So if you filed a few months ago, before any of this was announced, now you're getting rejected and sent home. If the govt was actually interesting in getting rid of illegitimate businesses, they could just go to them and see if they're real or not. All businesses that qualify someone to get a business manager visa have to be in commercial spaces, with signs with their name on it, and accessible.
They usually come with tax exemptions (so not really good fiscal impact), and make prices climb like crazy. See Portugal and their remote worker visa, they outpriced most Portuguese people out of every city slightly near an airport.
What’s rich about it? You can live in Japan as a non-resident and still be following 100% of the rules.
I agree with the GP. It’s their country. They set the rules. If they want to change the rules because those rules aren’t working for them, that’s their prerogative. As a USian, I’m actually sort of jealous that they have the ability to make changes so quickly.
Well, it depends a little on what OP meant by “resident” - often that gets used by expats to mean “permanent resident”, which is a pretty high bar.
But even if you just assume that OP
is here on the digital nomad visa thing, you’re effectively living here. More to the point, you’re following the rules, and it’s not at all ironic or contradictory to have an opinion that the rules can be changed by the host.
If they meant "permanent resident" when they said "resident" that'd be a pretty weird, given, you know, our 在留カード literally say "residence card" on them; but perhaps this actually common, and I'm one of today's lucky 10,000.
But if they're here on a Digital Nomad visa, then their stay is limited to 6mo with no pathway to extending this — _I_ personally don't think that qualifies as "living" in a place, but perhaps reasonable people can disagree on this point.
Yes, I knew as soon as I wrote that that someone would chime in with the English definition of 在留. I thought about deleting it since it isn’t important to the argument, but I left it in because it’s a thing I’ve heard expats say here.
Look, even if OP is just living here on a tourist visa and doesn’t have any form of residency at all, and (s)he’s still following the rules as established, it’s not even remotely ironic to say that the rules are the rules, and the host has the right to change the rules.
It would be ironic if OP did that while admitting to violating immigration law.
It’s not the point. If you’re following the rules, you can call it whatever you like. If you’re not following the rules, then it’s at least ironic that you’d be calling for defense of the rules.
It’s a weirdly motivated form of pedantry to get snarky at someone for using the word “living” when you know nothing about their situation. It’s almost like you’re looking for a reason to be upset.
Double standards. He is an immigrant in Japan but he doesn’t want immigrants both in his host (Japan) and home (UK) countries. Pretty ironic come to think of. I guess he thinks his type are “good” immigrants, others are not so much.
The UK isn't exactly an assimilation success story.
As someone with potential aspirations of moving to a different country I don't mind it if they tried to avoid that kind of scenario and to retain their state's character to some extent.
The irony comment comes across somewhat innefective and petulant when I and others i've encountered with such views hold them in spite of the effects it could have for us. I don't see the point in laughing at that any more than i see it in calling out irony when a rich person calls for tax hoops to be closed and taxation to be fair.
>Model identifiers are values of ClaudeModel. Use a compiled-in constant, or construct one with explicit capabilities for an ID that isn't compiled in yet (see Capabilities):
Special emphasis on the "isn't compiled in yet" and "or construct one" bit.
The betas of the next OS's include a Siri AI chatbot, and the AI features are built into various parts of the OS. A user has no idea what model is powering any of it - Apple controls the UX.
The article is about (from the eyes of a user) white-labeled usage of Claude models on Apple devices, this subthread is about white-labeled usage of LLMs on Apple devices, how is it not relevant?
> The users won't know if you used Foundation Models API or integrated with OpenAI/Anthropic/Gemini SDK directly.
That's the point! That's the whole "white-labeling" part, and what the commentator earlier is talking about. You're very close in understanding the context here!
I think you're taking the written words a bit too literally here. Read it with a more lax filter and less literal word-meaning, and I think the original comment will become a bit clearer.
You know what, I've been a bit too snipe-y in my previous comments, and it led to to discussion devolving in unproductive ways.
I'd genuinely like to understand where you're coming from more.
I think we're all in agreement that this framework is very much about letting developers swap the models easily, and treat them as commodities. That seems pretty obvious.
I do however still don't see how this has anything to do with controlling the UX (or the new Siri for that matter! The new Siri doesn't use Anthropic models, and there are no extensions point for it to do so — that's pretty much the whole reason why it won't be available in the EU).
I don't know if it helps. One way to look at it is branding product. Apple is branding the product. So they supposedly have more value to customers as it stands for quality, awareness, trust etc. As oppose to 100 little components in computer which maybe from different brands, and Apple may switch brand year to year without user noticing. So those components makers have little power over Apple.
Same is happening to Claude software package as it would stand behind branded Apple foundation models. From pure software developer thinking this is exactly what Claude offered here so where is the issue? Issue is in larger space where Apple could take steps to block Claude out of their ecosystem if they so wish at some point and there is little Claude / Anthropic would do if Apple Foundation is the only thing that Apple consumers would know about.
That framing would make sense to me if the thing being discussed was Apple letting _end users_ somehow access Claude models white-labeled as "Apple Foundation Model", sure? Or even letting _developers_ access Apple-hosted Claude or something?
But this is very much _not_ what this is.
Apple showed a bunch of new APIs at WWDC last week. One of this is a way for a developers to interact with LLM's in a way that let's you easily swap out models (with a bunch of other niceties around it), including swapping between on-device and remote models.
This is _Anthropic_ (not Apple!) shipping their support for that framework, so you can also switch between different Anthropic models using the same APIs you'd use to swap between a local or PCC model.
I expect OpenAI will probably ship their shims in the next couple of weeks too? (You can probably vibe-code one in half an hour if you point Codex at the Anthropic one, tbh).
(Apple also doesn't use "Apple Foundation Model" anywhere in the user-facing marketing materials AFAICT, this is strictly developer facing terminology, but I could be wrong?)
My impression is that people are _wildly_ misunderstanding what this _actually_ is, and running wild with speculation/interpretation.
The way I see it, isn't about what is immediately there right now today, but what intent it signals, or what path Apple is planning. Yes, today it's ClaudeForFoundationModels, but the FoundationModels stuff will be used to allowed switching between models, probably without users noticing, and who knows what Apple will ultimately surface to users, tends to be in the direction of less user-control.
But there is a lot of assumptions, guesses and extrapolation from that, I think you're right if you focus only what's there right now, rather than trying to "see into the future" which harrouet basically started doing with their root comment.
I can't reply to your child comment for whatever reason, but Siri is part of the Apple Foundation Models framework. The idea is that no matter what backend the developer uses, the end user will always say "Hey Siri." This is analogous to controlling the UX. Siri is independent of whichever model the app developer uses.
No, Siri is entirely separate from this framework.
Are you thinking about Intents? That lets Siri interact with data (and perform some actions in them) from your apps, but it is something completely different.
You can definitely expose things from your app via Intents that will end up calling an external arbitrary LLM somewhere, but it does not require using Foundation Models API whatsoever.
This is support for a new framework that ships with reality/mac/iPad/watch/tv/iOS 27 (and that they've promised to open-source later in the year, so presumably you'll also be able to lean on this if you ship Swift on your backend).
The framework's whole deal is that it lets you use the same API to target either the device built-in models, the Apple-hosted online models (Private Cloud Computer), or write your own shims to call out to arbitrarily hosted online models.
You can then dynamically route your calls to a different kind of model/provider, using system APIs, without having to write your own abstraction layer over "I want to use local model for this, but I want to use Claude for that", or having to integrate your own API integration with Anthropic/OpenAI APIs.
It abstracts things like tool calling in one place; and has a bunch of other niceties/oddities (it keeps the same "transcript" going, even if you dynamically switch providers/models during a session) and some other things.
The apps can use the system provided on-device model using the same framework and APIs; but there's no affordances to deduplicate custom models between apps.
This is not exactly what you’re asking about, but I started learning Japanese when I was in the middle of playing Cyberpunk 2077 (for unrelated reasons); and I gotta tell you; realizing that 98% of the Japanese text everywhere in the game was just “hotel” or “karaoke” definitely took away some charm from it.
Infuse is a better Plex app than Plex is; and it supports Jellyfin and a bunch of other data sources.
It is, IMHO, a platonic ideal of what a “tv-shaped” video player app should be.
reply