I've enjoyed this exchange, but I think we've hit a point where our worldviews lead us to different conclusions about probabilities. You're drawing a distinctio

I've enjoyed this exchange, but I think we've hit a point where our worldviews lead us to different conclusions about probabilities. You're drawing a distinction between "technical change decisions" and strategic ones, but that's exactly the illusion I'm talking about. Policy and market cap considerations always trump technical ones - they just rarely conflict directly, so you build up what seems like overwhelming evidence that management doesn't interfere with engineering. Until they do, and then it gets rationalized as something else, or the old "for the greater good". You see your direct personal experience at Apple as giving you insight into how the company operates. I think that experience can actually cloud judgment - when you've invested years in an institution and know people there, and have some of your own identity tied up in that institution and how it's perceived, you're naturally inclined to interpret ambiguous situations charitably. That's not a criticism, it's just human nature. As for "bending the knee to a fascist government" not being evidence of sacrificing privacy stance - you're describing the mechanism by which principles get compromised while claiming it doesn't count. When you acknowledge that Apple's actions are driven by "significant influence over a good chunk of their revenue and regulatory control" from a government that's deploying zero-click spyware through ICE, the removal of forensic artifacts for detecting that spyware stops being "just a technical decision" that happened to occur at a really convenient moment. I don't actually know what happened here in this specific instance - whether the iOS 26 change was deliberate, accidental, or something in between. I'm basing my priors on general corporate behavior and the observation that Apple isn't special, just that circumstances have allowed them to take positions that aligned with what you and I both see as right. I don't doubt the people at the top genuinely believed in those positions when they were cost-free or profitable. But we're past that now. At some point we'll likely know more - this stuff tends to come out eventually through investigative reporting, court filings, or the Trump administration bragging about it. Until then, I guess we have different base assumptions about how much institutional conviction survives when it costs tens of billions.