Tapping a hardware guy as CEO sends a good signal, at least to me, looking in from the outside. The company is leading from its strength, and getting back to its roots. I wonder how Woz feels today, seeing this.
But somewhere in the mix, Apple could also really use another great product mind, like the other Steve. It has been too long since the last era-defining product from Cupertino.
I have no idea what that next big thing would be. And of course, a bad product mind in charge is worse than none at all! If the next big leaps come from other companies while Apple just keeps doing what it does best in the hardware categories that it already dominates, then I guess that's fine, too.
If they are going to tap a HW guy as CEO, the next big thing should be giving exec comp and positions to every member of the Asahi Linux team, and putting them in charge of SW at Apple.
No don’t waste any time on Linux, Apple memory independence, clustering and moving on to M5, M6, M7, and beyond, a technocrat in charge yes, hopefully Apple will continue to iterate across the software ecosystems and the hardware systems.
I wasn’t arguing everything be thrown out, just that a competent group be put in charge, and also that they open the HW up so there is competition on the SW side.
If you put third party support under macos leadership or next to it on the org chart, it’d be systematically sabotaged to death. That org hasn’t delivered anything useful in a decade (“useful” == “a user might notice and care”), so there’s no evidence current leadership could ship leadshot from a wet paper bag, even if they wanted to.
Also, they’d nearly double their laptop share overnight if they did this, and it’d cost them 10-20 FTEs.
> 2. To truly listen means to place yourself mentally and physically in a vulnerable state. Because you will likely hear things that run contrary to your experience, beliefs, and worldview. Judging people is often a self protection mechanism; which means you will almost never listen to someone.
A gem, thanks.
This can be especially rough for fans of early pg essays. You might find out that you didn't actually keep your identity so small after all. A double whammy!
There is a well-documented spectrum from direct to indirect styles of communication, among both cultures and individuals. The "tone poem" observation is a true description of that fact, even if it's a bit hyperbolic and colorful.
> Language is a representation of our world...we all... will use different words to describe similar-ish concepts...
Strangely enough, both the direct and the indirect communicators live under the postmodern condition, and yet somehow, the stylistic differences persist! Somehow, despite all the smart-sounding things you could say about semiotics or relativism, individuals are all different!
The problem (or at least, one of the problems) with what the manager did is that he dumped his employee's prose into the LLM in a one-size-fits-all way.
> The UAE government owns majority holdings in telecom companies Etisalat and Du. This gives security services the power to observe all communications on their networks.
> The Arab state has also used the Israeli-developed software Pegasus which allows agents to listen into private calls and read messages, even if they are shared on encrypted apps like WhatsApp,.
This seems to be the key part from a tech standpoint. Notice that it doesn't come out and say whether Pegasus played a part in this particular arrest, or the telecoms, or both, but it seems to be implied.
Also, I'm intrigued by the punctuation error at the end: "...like WhatsApp,." Did an earlier draft go on to list others? Does Pegasus help governments read messages from Telegram? Signal? It would be interesting to know more.
> Does Pegasus help governments read messages from Telegram? Signal?
Yes. It attempts privilege escalation and exfiltrates whatever message contents it can from multiple apps. Signal has some potential resistance to that since messages are encrypted in transit and at rest. The easiest weak link would be displaying message content in notifications, which is optional in Signal.
Interesting, thanks. I guess I'll carry on feeling marginally superior for choosing Signal over the others as my default, while remaining bleak about the overall landscape.
Pegasus tries to get root on your phone. If it succeeds, it could theoretically read message content or decryption keys right out of RAM and Signal doesn't have many options to defend itself.
If it doesn't, it tries to get additional permissions by other means, including asking the user for them. If it gets permission to read notifications and Signal is set to show message content in notifications, then it can exfiltrate your Signal messages. Your messages might be safe otherwise.
It is true that only Yudkowsky gets to say what the rational conclusion of his ideas are. Nobody else gets to speculate. Only the pope of rationalism, because he's the rational one here. See? It's right there in the name!
> this piece of slop
Citation needed. Or maybe we need to update the title of that children's book for internet arguments: Everyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Slop.
The Yud post you linked is not slop, either. It's not LLM-generated, nor is it insincere. But I do have to point out: He's the one who is slinging the tsunami of words here, not Alexander Campbell.
I think it's rather relevant that the community itself rejects the logic you're trying to impose on it. You can straw-man any sort of conclusion on to any sort of philosophy. This will not actually help you much at all if you're trying to predict what people will actually do.
If the only people that reach your conclusion are ones that don't actually subscribe to the philosophy, then it doesn't matter, because no one is actually acting on those conclusions.
And if we want to hold people responsible because others pervert their ideas, then we have to accept that Jesus Christ was a horrific, evil person for preaching "Love thy Neighbor"; just look at the crusades that were somehow the "rational conclusion" of that philosophy!
> "If the only people that reach your conclusion are ones that don't actually subscribe to the philosophy, then it doesn't matter, because no one is actually acting on those conclusions."
What an odd thing to say right after young Mr. Moreno-Gama reached that conclusion and did subscribe to the philosophy, when it does matter, because he did actually act on those conclusions.
How odd to introduce a hypothetical that amounts to, "what if this philosophy didn't ever lead to violence?", right after it did.
Or are you trying to pull a No True Scotsman on me here?
Every major philosophical group has killed people. Whatever beliefs you profess to hold, people have killed for them. If the presence of one or two deranged outliers is enough to reach reasonable conclusions about a group, then we can write off absolutely every single major contribution to philosophy, and conclude that having a philosophy leads only to violence and murder.
You have to understand basic statistics: is this group actually more dangerous than average? Do rationalists kill more than non-rationalists?
Or is the rational conclusion of non-rationalists also violence?
None of this is responsive to my point in the comment you're responding to.
My point is, why would you be talking about a counterfactual world where people did not attempt to kill for this philosophy? Why would you be entertaining a categorical claim like, "the only people that reach your conclusion are ones that don't actually subscribe to the philosophy", when that claim is manifestly violated by a violent act just a few short days ago? How is it inconceivable to you that someone might read the dire doomer rhetoric in the way that Moreno-Gama did?
The only way you could write something like that is if your head is in the sand. I am willing to entertain your relativism, your base rate logic, your analogy to Jesus, sure, obviously there's some merit to that line of argument... but first you need to please pull your head out of the sand.
We can only talk about base rates if you stop trying to invalidate the data.
> We can only talk about base rates if you stop trying to invalidate the data.
Exactly! You keep trying to deny the base rates by ignoring the billions of people who don't commit violence, and focusing entirely on the tiny number of outliers who do commit violence.
If "a small number of members are willing to commit violence" is taken as evidence that the whole group is violent, then every Hacker News reader is a terrorist, every Hacker News poster is DEFINITELY a terrorist, and everyone who disagrees with me is a radically violent nihilist that wants to destroy civilization.
I do not thing there is a single large group you could find that has never once had a radical carry out violence in their name - people commit violence for Christianity, for the Ethical Treatment Of Animals, for Peace.
> ignoring the billions of people who don't commit violence
> taken as evidence that the whole group is violent
Where did I say that?
I am not the one who put forward a categorical statement here. You're the one who appealed to a fantasy world where "the only people that reach your conclusion are ones that don't actually subscribe to the philosophy". The categorical claim is yours, and the error is yours, but rather than own it, you tell yourself a creative story about what I believe, and you continue saying all this inane stuff about how there's violence in every group.
As I have already told you, I am happy to consider all those inane, obvious points. It's important context! But first, I want to see evidence that you are capable of noticing and learning from your own sloppy, wishful thinking here. You have to actually admit that these ideas have consequences, before we can start relativizing them away.
> It is true that only Yudkowsky gets to say what the rational conclusion of his ideas are. Nobody else gets to speculate. Only the pope of rationalism, because he's the rational one here. See? It's right there in the name!
No, I am saying that Yudkowsky's views are straightforwardly compatible with bedrock principles of liberalism, and the author of the piece fails to acknowledge that compatibility or grapple with them himself. It's not about "rationalism" or who is "allowed" to speculate.
I called it slop because it says false things that have the hallmark of LLM style, e.g.
> The Sequences build the liturgy: a small caste of correct thinkers, epistemically and morally superior, whose rationality entitles them to govern what the rest of humanity is allowed to build. It’s not a safety movement. It’s a priesthood with an origin story written in fanfiction.
But somewhere in the mix, Apple could also really use another great product mind, like the other Steve. It has been too long since the last era-defining product from Cupertino.
I have no idea what that next big thing would be. And of course, a bad product mind in charge is worse than none at all! If the next big leaps come from other companies while Apple just keeps doing what it does best in the hardware categories that it already dominates, then I guess that's fine, too.
reply