shuckles

27 ms·

451.
by shuckles 3y ago
> It is not close. Which is what I think most people would predict - that it was not even close. With the caveat that drug offenses include manufacturing, trafficking, and sales: Your data is consistent with my claim: I meant the denomin
452.
by shuckles 3y ago
> that currently implemented predictive policing software doesn't function To the extent you consider pretrial decision risk assessment software to be "predictive policing" (after all, it's predicting which defendants
453.
by shuckles 3y ago
No it's not. I'm making a claim about what ML models are capable of in response to someone incorrectly summarizing a possible weakness with them. If police don't want to make drug busts in wealthy neighborhoods, they don&#x27
454.
by shuckles 3y ago
You are citing a correlational study from 1986 on 1970 data as strong evidence? That study doesn't even establish the direction of causality: it's very plausible high crime rates lead to poor economic outcomes, versus the opposite
455.
by shuckles 3y ago
Very few people are in prison for simple possession. The American justice system, contrary to most popular sentiment, is quite diversionary. As a percentage, Sweden probably has more people in prison for drug possession than America. Most p
456.
by shuckles 3y ago
I think you missed the point. An ML model would only fail in the way KL describes under certain circumstances. If it was indeed the case that everyone does drugs, then it would learn that traffic stops in wealthy neighborhoods also leads to
457.
by shuckles 3y ago
I wasn’t trying to be ironically correct. The EU doesn’t have to weigh in: Apple failed its appeal of the case.
458.
by shuckles 3y ago
> Again, if Apple shared your opinion then maybe they'd call Europe's bluff. One can believe regulation is counterproductive while complying with it. Compliance isn’t evidence of success. > you're still mad about a $4 g
459.
by shuckles 3y ago
You: The regulation to require USB-C was effective. [no citation] Me: By what standard? In my specific case, it wasn’t. You: Blah blah blah burden of proof hierarchy of disagreement. So do you have any citation or do you plan to keep deflec
460.
by shuckles 3y ago
Great, 52 hours of rent a year! Marginal cost is approaching $1/yr. Still very cheap welfare if you think this kind of thing is a human rights violation. I'd be happy if the EU deemed these terms unenforceable. That sounds like it
461.
by shuckles 3y ago
You do realize, if anything, the DMA itself is cope. The EU's consumer electronics industry has been lapped by the rest of the world, and now all they can do is nitpick connectors and firmly demand that Apple support something almost n
462.
by shuckles 3y ago
I was not the one claiming the regulation was effective, so the burden of proof isn't on me.
463.
by shuckles 3y ago
This is obviously untrue, because what I described is already the case, and Apple is the most successful consumer electronics maker. They don't care about market share, they care about owning the most profitable customers in the market
464.
by shuckles 3y ago
1. Then tomorrow you could argue human rights are violated. Not today. 2. So like I said: being able to run whatever software you want for more than a week at a time without having to click a button is the human right? Is that so? 2+3. I pr
465.
by shuckles 3y ago
> How exactly are they different from Apple, then Because Apple sells the highest security mass market consumer device ever made? Because Apple brought easy to use, end to end encryption to the masses with iMessage? No clue what your poi
466.
by shuckles 3y ago
Being the vanguard? Usage based pricing is not new, and framework makers have charged developers for access for a long time. Making an API public, even if the necessary code runs entirely on-device, is not free. It incurs immense upfront an
467.
by shuckles 3y ago
European regulators are idiots who have spent nearly half a decade trying to undermine end to end encryption. If I were them, I’d say their best chance at defending human freedom would be to make nuclear reactors easy to build, not engaging
468.
by shuckles 3y ago
I’m not sure what you mean by that question. If you’re trying to imply that usage based pricing for their APIs is banned by the EU, it’s not.
469.
by shuckles 3y ago
Again, I don’t know how I can make this clearer: macOS with a sealed system volume is plenty capable of keeping an app from running, ever. That Apple doesn’t enforce it is a concession to the history of the platform. It’s very unlikely they
470.
by shuckles 3y ago
It's not moving the goalposts because "apps banned by the government" are not apps that will be available through side loading. If Apple complies with the DMA, it will certainly comply with any government requirement that sid
471.
by shuckles 3y ago
You can already do that with a free developer account.
472.
by shuckles 3y ago
Any app that Xcode can build will be signed to run on the phone. There’s no permission required in any meaningful sense.
473.
by shuckles 3y ago
There are microprocessors with storage in any object you can buy, so obviously your evidence that iPad is a computer is pretty casual. I don’t think the DMA will change much but do find it funny how many people think they are defending huma
474.
by shuckles 3y ago
"This is a complex judgment call, and I think forcing side loading is a reasonable conclusion in light of varied impacts" is a very different point of view than "I don't see any downsides."
475.
by shuckles 3y ago
Companies set prices however they want, not based on "need". They don't need excuses.
476.
by shuckles 3y ago
You can sideload for free. You have to press a button to renew your local signature every week. The $100/year is to skip pressing the button. You don’t have to get permission to run locally signed apps.
477.
by shuckles 3y ago
Oppressive governments aren’t going to force Apple to allow side loading, so this isn’t really a meaningful example.
478.
by shuckles 3y ago
Picking a single sentence in a long comment is flattening.
479.
by shuckles 3y ago
Huh? I don’t see any further close readings. Empty promises.
480.
by shuckles 3y ago
Apple sets prices and there’s no reason they need to charge customers for the R&D costs of supporting public APIs. In fact, if they charged developers per call, maybe customers could pay less. It used to be pretty standard to charge for

More ›