it'll still be a net loss. how many customers sign up to icloud+ because of these ads -vs- how much do these ads tarnish the brand apple has spent so much money building?
if it could wver be quantified, i bet it's a net $ loss. and apples esteemed image is ostensibly very important to them. why the hell do apple execs think different?
> Well you'd probably pay a lot to advertise to that market.
and yet you have to restrain yourself from ever capitalizing on that, because not advertising to that market is what got you that market in the first place
might as well halt all ML development then. this is the first sign of hardship, i think it'd be a massive blow to mankind's foot for us to stop. it'd be akin to shutting down all nuclear plants and stopping all research because of chernobyl
This is a very interesting discussion. Your analogy of nuclear power is insightful to me. New technology with great positive & negative impact potential, some difficulty in controlling and a military applications (possible weapons-grade material production), being developed for commercial use.
Nuclear power development took different paths in different countries, with different government/private mix and light/heavier regulation (eg in US, AEC was supposed to both promote development _and_ regulate).
The central problem here is pace of AI development. It takes time to establish functional controls/laws/practices. I'm sure that in 1950s/60s, the pace of nuclear _military_ proliferation seemed running out of control. This lead to fear of falling behind (hence arms race), fear of nuclear war (CND) and some eventual stabilisation of the international landscape. However, the commercial development was largely unopposed, due to the techno-utopism of the era. Obviously governments found it much easier to control the public narrative at that time. Our societies are having this lively public debate now, before we have a good understanding (based on experience i.e. accidents/mistakes).
Another difference is that nuclear power involved only governments and v. large corporates, i.e. much fewer entities compared to AI use rollout to basically everybody in developed countries. Imagine the difficulties we would have faced with that technology, if consumers in 1960s had available nuclear-generated power which required them to exercise precautions to avoid radiation.
It is much easier to accelerate development of tech vs pace of societal processes such as public debate, law, regulations, broad understanding (aka "common sense"). I expect some artificial slowing down will need to be applied to the technology side, to allow the humans to catch up.
Just checked, they can. Phew. If the forwarding alias was detectable/always used the same schema, that'd also make them borderline useless, just like the `privaterelay` subdomain
What do you mean renamed? Alias address certainly are not changeable. You can randomize next one from 2-3 options, but most of them still follow pattern that is easy to recognize.
PS: I guess its just misunderstsnding and I really meant addresses themself are not human-like enough.
But the private relay domain is only used when you sign up through “Sign in with Apple”? A thing you have to support if your iOS app already supports sign up with other third party authentication providers.
the problem with it is entirely cultural. why is `IStatusChangeEntityCreationManagerFactory` everywhere?
and why are the frameworks so huge and all encompassing? i think batteries included rails-style frameworks are great, but when i wrote Java, it didn't feel like rails at all
I know and like Java for almost 30 years now. It is amazing how carefully the language is beeing refined. For the cultural aspect, yes, that is sadly true, but I have the feeling that the culture changes. More and more developers realize that there is a better way now (e. g. records instead of dumb classes full of getters and setters). Maybe the main problem is bloated frameworks and their stickyness. The Helidon framework, for example, is a breath of fresh air compared to Spring. Go developers complaining about huge Java frameworks and boilplate could be happy with it.
IMHO, the main reason why Spring is huge is because it has grown organically to encompass many of the business cases/issues that one may encounter in both depth and breadth. So the http framework supports almost everything you may ever need and there is integration with every database, middleware, infra like kubernetes. (One can debate about the quality of all the lesser used modules but the main modules are pretty okay.)
On the other hand I have used Quarkus which was great until it wasn’t because a certain http feature wasn’t supported or we needed integration with an unsupported database. In enterprise that is enough reason to just choose for the batteries included option and lift along on improvements of the main framework.
Just adding the bare bones integration wasn’t that hard. The trick comes from ensuring all the observability is wired correctly, that it fits in the framework usage, works good with graalvm, and other “non-functionals”.
At this point the work is typically more than you want a single team to maintain. Unfortunately, in many large enterprises it is just easier and more efficient to grab a bigger framework than trying to organise sharing the custom integration in the organisation.
i am building my own framework on top of it[1].
the biggest thing for me was it was rewritten on virtual threads from grounds up. no vertx. no netty, lesser indirections.
This is specifically Spring culture, not Java culture in general. I don't tend to see this outside of Spring. Maybe back in the J2EE days, but that community seems to be more or less dead.
Java is a big tent. Yeah there are some parts that deserve this kind of mockery.
The Rails equivalent is over-metaprogramming. "I solved it with method_missing." I've worked on code like this in real life. TBH I'd rather have the inane verbose class names.
I-prefixing interfaces is a practice from Microsoft's COM, and to this day still isn't part of Java culture, despite the efforts of subversive dotnet renegades.
I have an opinion on why. If you were in that world 25+ years ago, you'll be familiar with the landscape. There were a dozen popular application servers, each with 15 versions in the wild, all running on premises, and you had to ship software to customers who had wildly different operations. It helped. It's verbose. As you said, this mostly attributable to JEE and projects that traded build time complexity and home-grown code for abstraction complexity.
I had to support systems from IBM, BEA, Apache, Red Hat, SAP, and some I'm certainly forgotten. Then there were the piecemeal systems. OSGi made an appearance. Then you have databases from Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM. Identity and auth was the wild west, with countless SSO vendors, wacky LDAP implementations, wackier SAML implementations, Kerberos, Ping... Despite that, it was pretty feasible to build and ship the same artifacts and configure things at the site.
Most languages simply don't have all the frameworks that were created specifically for use in an enterprise context. There's cobol and there's maybe C#, Java and then a long tail of everything else.
A lot of the Java stuff actually came out of the Smalltalk community. IBM used to employ a lot of these people and they brought their enterprise stuff with them when things like Enterprise Java Beans became a thing. And because IBM was there, you got everybody else showing up as well. That's why Oracle bought Sun as well to get access to that juicy market.
IBM could have picked any language. But Java was kind of there and new at the time and it kind of did the job. So that's what they jumped on. MS stole a bit of the thunder with dot Net a few years later which is why C# is also very common in that space. But besides that there isn't a whole lot that has similarly wide adoption. Client side is a whole different story of course.
And the reason stuff gets complicated is that there is a lot of design by committee going on in this world by parties that are mutually adversarial and have big budgets.
So, this particular feature comes out of at least 15 (I think) years or so being debated in that sort of committee. It kind of predates the whole inception creation of things like Kotlin. I was at a 15 year birthday party for that at the Jetbrains office in Berlin a few weeks ago. Debates about value classes in the Java community probably go back to last century.
There's always this comment on every Java post. I expect the average HN member to be someone on the team who is either leading their projects or plays a significant role in driving the design of the software. You set the culture for your own projects. I've lead the development of some massive Java apps and all have had simple and clean architecture. I've never seen IStatusChangeEntityCreationManagerFactory or anything like it even once in any of my projects, but perhaps that's because the last time I used Spring was ~17 years ago. Most of my recent projects are using Quarkus, which is still a relatively large framework. But our codebase is designed in such a way that we're not tightly coupled to Quarkus.
I have seen a surge of overly complicated PRs now that we're in the AI era, but it's our job to be the gatekeeper and push back on this crud from entering the codebase. And that's likely true of any language.
this is basically trying to enforce security-by-obscurity, which is a terrible idea all around. it's just a model. the security issues still exist and are exploitable.
and after staking the economy on AI, you can't really put a cap on intelligence. if models are not allowed to be better than Opus 4.8, then the whole investment structure is about to unravel.
why invest billions and billions into AI if returns are artificially capped?
Wow, it's starting to seem like the choice is essentially between an intelligence cap that pops the bubble, and an increasingly chaotic and unpredictable cybersecurity environment with major hacks and exploits left and right.
if it could wver be quantified, i bet it's a net $ loss. and apples esteemed image is ostensibly very important to them. why the hell do apple execs think different?
reply