Maybe the idea is that associating a coin with something/anything that has momentum will make some people believe that the coin could take off along with the thing.
From a consumer point of view, the best approach would be if devlopers had to sell their app in Apple's App Store (if Apple approves) and could optionally provide other purchasing options on top of that.
It would prevent fragmentation and give people a choice to pay up if they actually value Apple's extra protections (if any).
Case law isn't directly normative in civil law traditions like Germany and France in the same way it is in common law traditions like the U.S. and U.K. But court decisions that are deemed interesting do get picked up in journals, cited in academic literature, and cited by other judges in their own decisions. There is a herd dynamics psychology where judges and academic writers default to following along with the principles established in each other's decisions and academic writing, rather than go against that consensus. (Unless their conviction is very strong, and they are, depending on the gravity of the issue, willing to stake their reputations and careers on those convictions). -- I brushed over that distinction when I used the term “precedent”. In my mind it's pot-ay-toh po-tah-toh.
>The rest of the world keeps ripping users off, and Apple's walled garden is as protected a thing as it gets.
This keeps getting repeated but it's not actually my experience. Not even Apple believes it, otherwise they could avoid a lot of legal and regulatory trouble by giving users a choice: Pay through Apple for an extra 30% protection fee.
>The other point I've seen is that its string library is slow and very accurate.
Swift strings default to operating on grapheme clusters, which is relatively slow. But you can always choose to work with the underlying UTF-8 representation or with unicode scalars, which is fast.
The only situation where UTF-8 incurs overhead is if the String comes from some old Objective-C API that gives you a UTF-16 encoded String.
Unicode scalars are not so fast. But yes working directly with UInt8/Data bytes is efficient.
That’s how I took over maintenance of SwiftSoup and made it over 10x faster according to my benchmarks. Besides various other optimizations such as reducing copying, adding indexes, etc.
I agree. The article's logic is incoherent. It conflates the choice of tools with the decision what product to make and what level of quality to aim for.
If AI can be used to make bad (or good enough) software more cheaply, I have no problem with that. I'm sure we will get a huge amount of bad software. Fine.
But what matters is whether we get more great software as well. I think AI makes that more likely rather than less likely.
Less time will be spent on churning out basic features, integrations and bug fixes. Putting more effort into higher quality or niche features will become economically viable.
I wonder if that's only really true for "pre-LLM" engineers though. If all you know is prompting maybe there's not a higher quality with more focused that can really be achieved.
It might just all meld into a mediocre soup of features.
To be clear not against AI assisted coding, think it can work pretty great but thinking about the implications for future engineers.
>If all you know is prompting maybe there's not a higher quality with more focused that can really be achieved.
That's true of any particular individual but not for a company that can decide to hire someone who can do more than prompting.
>It might just all meld into a mediocre soup of features
I don't think the relative economics have changed. Mediocre makes sense for a lot of software categories because not everyone competes on software quality.
But in other areas software quality makes a difference it will continue to make a difference. It's not a question of tools.
I've never used polymarket, I just wanted to mention prediction markets as an option in general.
The particular bet I linked to is probably a bad idea though, because there is a causal link between OpenAI doing well and deciding to go public. So this is not the way to bet on it crashing and burning.
Betting on the trainwreck is quite easy, you got nothing to lose in the analogy, while shorting companies will cost you something, most times a lot if the bet has the wrong timing.
Not necessarily. Spread betting doesn't work like that for instance. And shorting a stock can be structured in a way that caps your losses as well. It's just a matter of cost vs potential gains.
reply