He built his business by scamming warehouses... They're both dirt. Bezos just isn't as insecure and doesn't try to gloat where everyone can see his insanity.
Ottomateeverything
joined 2 years ago
And coincidentally YouTube, Spotify, and Amazon Music, all of Apple Musics competition, just all happened to not implement this? All of Apples competition just decided to not add a pretty critical function to the people of that ecosystem? When they all do it in Google's?
Yeah, I don't buy that. At all. Sure the API might be there, but you know who gatekeeps those APIs? Apple. This smells a lot more like Apples fued with Google over turn by turn directions bullshit. Especially when we can see how blatantly hostile to Spotify Apple is willing to be.
It seems a lot more likely that Apple is holding that API over their heads and refusing to allow access to it, than it does that all their Apple Music competition just happens to have all conveniently forgotten to implement a pretty core feature in Apple's ecosystem, while remembering to do it in Googles.
It's very much not on Spotify. It supports services apple decided aren't competing with Apple Music. Look at all the things missing, as your article points out.
It's crazy how much bullshit Apple can pull, and even semi educated people will come to their defense blaming other people for apples failings.
Yeah, that's really really fucking stupid.
Wait, you still can't use HomePod/Siri to control Spotify? How the fuck does this company continue to exist? Why do people put up with their fucking garbage?
Yeah, because that's basically irrelevant. Their problem is about where payment is made and how ridiculous it is to have users have to set up subscriptions on the web. Having them sign up there doesn't help that problem at all. It's just Apple fishing for more sympathy.
I have no experience with them, but FYI a bunch of people were recommending sceptre for dumb TVs in other threads.
I had a programmer lead who rejected any and all code with comments "because I like clean code. If it's not in the git log, it's not a comment."
Pretty sure I would quit on the spot. Clearly doesn't understand "clean" code, nor how people are going to interface with code, or git for that matter. Even if you write a book for each commit, that would be so hard to track down relevant info.
Nah, then a bunch of representatives would receive some "donations" and then they'd suddenly be a on a crusade to tear apart said agency.
Yeah, I totally agree with you, don't get me wrong. I think it's bullshit to switch terms. And also bullshit to write terms that just say "if we fuck you over, you can't do anything about it".
I just wanted to point out that the legality of it probably wouldn't hold any actual water so don't be totally paranoid about it and take it with a grain of salt. For anyone who's a little more torn.
But yeah, Idk that I'd keep the device at that point either.
As usual, wildly overblown title.
Basically all the article actually says is that they want to use ChatGPT to be able to formulate recipes out of ingredients. I guess that's a handy use for LLMs, but it's not like they're driving the robot or doing anything crazy. It's a weird crutch for planning.
How the fuck they want to spin this as an ethical concern is beyond me. Unless they just mean "well now we're stealing everyone's recipes they've posted online".