VOA News is not a reliable news source—it’s literally a taxpayer-funded propaganda outlet of the USA. Since the Trump administration the organization has been pumping out odd conservative talking points.

I think they’re going to give him newly-issued stock, not cash. However, the newly issued stock will not be backed by new capital (i.e. nobody would have given the company money in exchange for the stock), so what will happen is that existing shares will have their values diluted, i.e. they will be worth less.

In other words, shareholders will pay for Elon’s compensation by devaluing their investments, and not by drawing money out of Tesla’s coffers.

$56B is roughly 10% of Tesla’s market cap of $581B, so shares should be devalued by about that same rate.

Is the answer no? It’s no, isn’t it?

Yep, Axios straight-up printed an ad as news.

I thought this was a new Chuck Tingle novel.

Define “complete”.

A 1.0 product is by definition the worst product the company will make of that type. That’s no different from any other product by any other company.

There is no complete product. There are only products you can buy, and those you can’t.

You’re conflating the perfect with the good. The question is not whether Vision Pro is perfect, it’s whether it’s good enough for today. I happen to think that it is for the goals the company has set (well under 1M units sold). But it will of course improve rapidly every year.

This is not new. This is every new product Apple has introduced.

I heartily disagree. This is a 1.0 product, and though it’s deeply flawed in so many ways, it also nailed interactions that other companies have struggled with. They’re going to iterate and pivot on this platform for the next few years (and sell cheaper models) and they will find the sweet spot. This platform is here to stay.

I think so.

Apps can get woken up when a remote notification arrives that has the content-available key. Apps are woken up in background mode, at which point they have a few seconds to do whatever they need to do to refresh their content cache. This, of course, often leads to the app making a connection to the server, which exposes the user’s IP address.

I think the sin here is that some apps always set the content-available key regardless of whether there is content to be retrieved or not. That turns the notification into a surveillance tool, allowing the app to check in periodically.

“Externalities” are just expenses that corporations incur that have to be paid by the public.

Make externalities losses again.

Among tech companies, RTO has primarily been about one thing: maintaining real estate investments. This was likely the primary reason Apple began RTO much earlier than most of its peers (Aug 2022). Apple has enormous RE investments in Apple Park, in San Diego, Austin, and a bunch of other locations, and RTO was a way to ensure their values stay up, and they can remain qualified for tax credits by bringing commerce to those areas.

The fact that RTO also causes the most expensive people to leave was a fortuitous bonus. In 2023, interest rates went high, and money (and thus revenue) became tight, so companies like Amazon enacted RTO to force their most expensive employees to leave.

Make no mistake: Apple, too, used RTO as an attrition tool. They fully expected some single-digit percentages of their engineering workforce to quit due to RTO.

deleted by creator

I’ll flip the question around: what are you trying to achieve with zero anonymity, and how could it be abused? Is the tradeoff worth it?

If real identity is required to participate, but is not publicly displayed, who would you entrust with this information, and how could it be abused?

PSA: This “study” is crap.

Link to actual study

They base their findings on incidents per driver, not per mile driven. Maybe the “safest” drivers here just…don’t drive their vehicles all that much?

The open secret of Open Source is that successful projects are largely the playground of capitalists. Who has the time to develop and maintain a whole mobile OS with all of the services people have come to expect, for no compensation? Surely the money flows in from interested parties who can then use the software to their advantage.

Much of the fundamental pieces of iOS and macOS is open source too. Darwin/XNU are open-source, but no one is under the impression that any of this effort is to benefit anyone other than Apple. Sure, Darwin-based alternative OSes exist, but let’s not kid ourselves that they are anything but curiosities, waiting to be derailed by Apple when they get too large.

The article is incorrect in equating Apple’s stance to Google’s. As far as I can tell Google does not require a warrant, only a subpoena (which doesn’t require a judge’s review), while Apple’s change does require a court order or a warrant, both of which require a judge to sign off.

This is why pharma research should be publicly funded, and the results go directly into public domain. We will save so much money and lives in the long run that way.

I don’t think Ridley Scott knows how AI works.

Yeah, it’s all about incentives. Google’s behavior is what the law incentivizes.