Stoneykins [any]

Solution is simple, community should turn any suspiciously product focused thread into an advertisers nightmare of filth

Then the ads will just be the ones with the comment sections turned off

Apple is interested in maintaining full control of what apps can be on their platform and how they are presented because it gives them power over negotiations with companies that build the apps. They are basically able to “name their price” and make sure they are always getting as big of a cut as they would like.

The EU is interested in not letting them do that because that kind of “negotiating” behavior is pretty well understood to be anti-consumer. Increased costs for app developers are usually passed directly onto the consumer through the prices. And it tends to get worse over time.

No company anywhere wants to use webapps anymore. Apps installed on devices are free advertising and access to user data. It is frustrating but the way it is, on all devices, already. So basically the answer is the same as why can’t most apps that already exist on all devices anyways just be web apps.

I don’t think sideloaded would be quite the right word, this is about access to other app stores (like the google play store or amazon app store, or more niche ones) that would then formally and automatically install and maintain apps exactly the same way the apple app store already does, presumably just with a different library of apps to choose from.

Apps from another app store would need no access to any API by apple unless they were specifically interacting with apple services, AFAIK. Which, would be under the full control of apple and apple chooses who uses it, how, and how much they use it, but that is already the case regardless.

I tried to answer your confusions as best as I can do with what I know already. As for why people take this so personally, I would say it is a complex topic combining businesses that are constantly trying to drive each other out of business with the social effects of making the tool people use to communicate a status symbol. And it has been brewing for long enough that people are getting extreme opinions and fostering long term grudges based on personal experience, to the point that some people have some real hatred towards anyone who has a different phone OS than them.

This was a long comment to type and I did it while laying in bed half asleep. Sorry if it has a bunch of typos or errors lol

What is “the enshitification face”

I can only imagine horrible things

I won’t call you names but this literally doesn’t make any sense to me. In no way would the apple app store be affected, your walled garden is safe. To (attempt to) extend the metaphor, this is like giving you the option to take walks in other gardens, but your walled garden is still where you left it, gate locked.

I’m not here to argue the finer points, and in general I simply try to aim for the practical actions that lead to better circumstances. I agree with many of your points.

This lawsuit won’t fix anything but it will slow down the progress of OpenAI and their ability to loot culture and content for all it’s value. I see it as a foot in the door for less economically capable artists and such.

Lawsuits are not isolated incidents. The outcome of this will have far reaching impacts on the future of how people’s work is treated in regards to AI and training data.

Noooooooooo. No.

Everyone and every organization has a bias. Even a “neutral” bias is a bias. Finding out which way their bias leans is good info to figure out.

For someone who claimed to not be a fan of OpenAI, you sure do know all the fan arguments against regulation for AI.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Apparently most people from this assumed I was anti-nuclear, when actually I am just very pro-renewables. I don’t really have a problem with nuclear, not unless it is used improperly or inefficiently. I just recently had seen many arguments on lemmy where a lot of people seemed to be against using renewables in favor of nuclear.

I just needed a phrase to refer to the group of people that really, really liked nuclear power, and only wanted nuclear power to be the solution to fossil fuels, and were pretty rude to anyone who disagreed with them about this. “Nuclear Stan” seemed accurate to that, and I didn’t mean it as an insult, just a description of their position on the issue.

So why does it bother you? I’m not trying to be rude.

Ah, the specifc numbers, 80%/20%, or 90%/10%, I’m not sure we exactly agree on, but hypothetical future specifics like that aren’t productive to argue about, I’m sure it will be solved by practicality at the time it becomes relevant.

But also important, and I should have said something about it before, battery and other power storage method technology is also getting cheaper and more effective, faster and faster. 2023 battery tech is better than 2022 battery tech and 2024 battery tech will be better yet, all by noticeable margins. It doesn’t really concern me, they get better faster than we can build them. And we are getting more efficient at recycling the rare materials too, we aren’t far from it being cheaper to recycle a battery than mine new rare materials.

Hi! Your information is outdated and we very much have the technology necessary to meet energy demand with renewables.

I agree with this. I like nuclear, I think it’s neat, but I think it will be a minor player in solving climate change and meeting energy demands (unless there is some miracle breakthrough in fusion). It is perfect for specific locations/contexts.

I’m just bothered by:

People who think nuclear everywhere is the only possible solution to getting off fossil fuels, and have unrealistic expectations about its ease of building and price

and

People who trash talk solar and wind while being wholly uninformed about how effective and cheap those things are, and how fast they are getting cheaper and more effective.

For some reason, these people are often the same people.

“stan” is a common word for excessive fanatic. It isn’t always purely an insult. I also was specifically referring to people that were pretty rude in their behavior before. Feel free to assume I’m not talking about you, I’m not saying there is anything wrong with people who like nuclear.

Think of me as a solar stan if it makes things simpler

Yes my political opponents are the people I disagree with. I don’t see your point here.

Fixing our energy demands so they stop fucking the planet doesn’t require us to hold hands and sing together, we just have to invest in the proper energy infrastructure. Arguing about what energy infrastructure is proper is a good way to make sure we are looking at all sides of this.

Edit: man, quiet downvotes annoy me. Please, let me know what I said that drew your ire so I can determine whether I’ve made an ass of myself or if we just don’t agree.

I remember so many nuclear stans on lemmy a bit ago refusing to acknowledge that renewables are getting so good and cheap that they are more important to solving climate change than nuclear. I wonder how they feel seeing investors pull out in favor of renewables?

I really think we need to get there closer to 2030, maybe 2035, but seriously it is nice to see any plan that doesn’t think 2050 is fine