which has been warped all out of any comprehensible reality. It hinges on the idea of 'voluntarily' turning over information. Much of what is now considered information voluntarily turned over isn't even information that people know exist much less that they are turning over much less doing so voluntarily.
Almost unbelievable that they allow this - except of course they do, because scamware makes a ton of money via in-app purchase, and Apple gets 30%, so of course they do. I'm sure people will come out of the woodwork now to white knight for Apple and spin this somehow. But anything that offends their business model can be removed in minutes, while software that by its title violates the App Store rules is just here indefinitely.
The App Store has done a great job of training users to think that anything downloaded from it is somehow safe. In reality, Apple’s static code analysis and human review processes are flawed and people need to exercise way more caution than they do.
The claim that malware "makes a ton of money" for Apple definitely needs a citation. I certainly don't believe it.
Obviously, Apple understands that the reputational damage from malware is more costly than any cut they might get from the miniscule sales of it. Apple might be evil (for some definition of "evil"), but they're not dumb.
Occam's Razor and Halon's Razor are aligned here. Apple would prefer this app not exist, but somehow it slipped through the review.
@PlatoIsADisease (because dead comments can't be replied): the term WalledGarden has been a term for this and related concepts since long before marketing-speak had completed the takeover of the internet.
The meta these days is bundling dodgy SDKs which turn the device into a residential proxy, which then gets sold on to the highest bidder. Mostly AI companies, whose desire to scrape literally everything has driven demand for that type of malware into the stratosphere.
The addiction aspect of this is real. I was skeptical at first, but this past week I built three apps and experienced issues with stepping away or getting enough sleep. Eventually my discipline kicked in to make this a more healthy habit, but I was surprised by how compelling it is to turn ideas into working prototypes instantly. Ironically, the rate limits on my Claude and Codex subscriptions helped me to pace myself.
Isn't struggling to get enough sleep or shower enough and so on because you're so involved with the process of, you know, programming, especially interactive, exploratory programming with an immediate feedback loop, kind of a known phenomenon for programmers since essentially the dawn of interactive computing?
Sort of, but the speed at which I can see results and the ability to quickly get unstuck does pull me in more than just coding. While I find both enjoyable, I'm more of a 'end result' person than a 'likes to the type in the code' person. There was a conversation about this a month or so ago referencing what types of people like LLMs and which do not.
I saw a conversation like that but, like here, I didn't always understand what they meant with "end result". Was it only the app GUI and they don't care about the code at all, or do they still care about the code quality, the architecture and planning.
I've written software that solved business problems in everything from Visual Basic to C++. The end result can include the things you list, but typing in the code to me is down the list of importance.
Personally, for me, the "end result" embraces the architecture, planning, algorithms, domain model, code quality, and documentation etc, as well as what the app does in the end. I care a lot about making well architected, reliable stuff
Using agents trigger different dopamine patterns, I'd compare it to a slot machine: did it execute it according to plan or did it make a fatal flaw? Also, multiple agents can run at once, which is a workflow for many developers. The work essentially doesn't come to a pausing point.
How do you feel about Safari tab groups? They're perfectly happy to snap open a thousand tabs at once, from however many such groups you like, all synced across all the (Apple) devices. And on the left of the Safari window in a sliding tray.
Aside from these groups, there's "Save all open tabs to a Bookmarks folder" which lets you just shove a few hundred or thousand tabs into a bookmarks folder every few weeks or months.
Given the old limits on these, it's remarkable how much work they put into tab hoarding enabling!
> What ZKPs don’t do is mitigate verifier abuse or limit their requests, such as over-asking for information they don’t need or limiting the number of times they request your age over time. They don’t prevent websites or applications from collecting other kinds of observable personally identifiable information like your IP address or other device information while interacting with them.
Interesting. While that is true I don't see how it's an argument against. Over-asking + ZKP certainly seems superior to over-asking + without ZKP. Without ZKP in a world where you constantly need to identify yourself you have absolutely no privacy.
And going forward I think that any communication without establishing some kind of trust boundary will just be noise.
Me too. I've been using spec-kitty [0], a fork of Spec Kit. Quite amazing how a short interview on an idea can produce full documents of requirements, specs, tasks, etc. After a few AI projects, this is my first time using spec driven development, and it is definitely an improvement.
Inspired by a TED talk I saw [0] where the researcher from Microsoft displayed a program with AI assisting with thinking while someone was reading and annotating a document. They claimed it was a way to sharpen critical thinking instead of killing it. They didn't release the product, but I figured it was cool and useful, so I've spent the weekend creating it. It's been a great way for me to practice using agents, and I've learned a lot from this process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
reply