Just do what we all do to dodge this, have the Account management and purchasing abilities sit inside an embedded browser window that opens up from a button push in the app. Yes it adds a little barrier but with Apple Pay it is a very small barrier and the juice is worth the squeeze.
They don't have to "cite the Epic case", it's just functionality available to everyone now. Your app is no longer blocked from approval for including an external payment provider.
They'd actually have to do it though and that could lead to a large loss of revenue for themselves and their subscribers.
In practice I’ve seen apps just game the system by (1) using IAP using the normal flow, and (2) giving user a button unrelated to purchasing that would open a new WebView, which just happens to contain a purchase button.
Not sure why poeple don't just put the phone down? We really are the most sheltered gentle generation. Oh no, this app is taking up my time, we need to BAN IT.
This isn't about the small group of people who lack self control. It's about the vast majority that can use something responsibly. Most people can consume alcohol and gamble without giving their lives to it.
Not to mention this presupposes that social media addiction is rampant. But there isn't a scientific consensus on that. This lawsuit reads like scaremongering of the past around television and comic books. Instead of regulating content or user privacy we get these dog and pony shows.
And are their laws about how much I can go gamble at the casino right now or how much I can go buy at a liquor store and drink tonight?
Pretty sure too much gambling and too much alcohol is worse than watching too many short videos. So how can we say that spending time on figuring out how to block people from watching too many short videos is a better use of our time and resources than limiting gambling and drinking.
There are laws about the age you can be to gamble or drink, restrictions on the establishments where these things can occur, and you can have your license revoked for driving while under the influence, or be banned from a casino. Don't act like those are totally unrestricted activities.
Distinction without a difference. The social media companies re-use the playbooks these two industries practically invented. Yet social media doesn't have government-mandated surgeon general warnings or 24x7 support hotlines.
This isn't about regulation. This is about people bringing a lawsuit against social media companies for their addiction. Problem gamblers and alcoholics aren't suing the casinos and distilleries.
Congratulations! You have apparently won in life by successfully developing internal regulation during childhood and also won the genetic lottery by not having a disorder of the dopaminergic system like ADHD. Now please leave be the significant fraction of the population who don't have those privileges, thank you.
I've missed critical final exams and flights literally scrolling Instagram. Mental health disorders exist, alas.
Huh, that's exactly the solution to addiction? Step 1 is always changing your behaviour patterns to break out of habits and avoid things that draw you into it.
Make your bedroom a phone-free zone, charge it in the living room overnight, use the built in parenting and screentime controls that every modern phone OS has, don't let your kids stare at the screen all day. Etc.
This isn't rocket science. Self control is one of the most important things you need to learn. It sucks and it's hard but it's basic life stuff.
The only difference with social media addiction vs drugs/gambling is that it's not socially ostracized like other addictions so people ignore it.
I think we can all agree that the solution is to stop, but that it is difficult to do so.
I'm not addicted to alcohol or gambling, but I know that it takes significantly more willpower for those that are to just stop than it does for me to not have that chocolate bar at night.
This is the lie that keeps people addicted. Plenty of people quit their very real addictions every day. If you imagine you're helplessly addicted, you will remain addicted.
I believed that for years, I did CBT, changing beliefs, "just do it" et cetera and I was helpless still, went from one addiction to another. Turns out I had ADHD. My life was totally changed after medication.
You don't have infinite willpower. If humans had infinite willpower humanity would have worked itself to death long ago. There is a natural balance of willpower in your brain, it's called the dopaminergic system. If you have ADHD, you have much, much less willpower than a normal person because you literally lack the dopamine hormone in your prefrontal cortex. No amount of belief will magically create dopamine in your brain out of thin air.
re adults it does fall to individual responsibility , re kids we can partially blame parents for not taking care of their kids properly , overall the enemy of our attention has quadrillions of dollars which is fairly difficult to fight against
Nobody is talking about banning anything, we’re talking specifically about holding social media companies accountable for marketing to children a product that is knowingly addictive and potentially harmful to their health.
Part of the issue with social media is that no reasonable parent lets their 12 year old watch porn or drink but Instagram and ticktock are on a lot more 12 year old’s phone’s than you realize. Social media has network effects and creates tremendous social pressure to not make your kid “different” when half the classroom is sharing TikToks.
I’m not conservative in the slightest but I see no reason to treat social media any differently than alcohol, tobacco or gambling. Available without restriction to adults but limited to children under a certain age.
This stuff is still unclear to me. The addictive drugs, ones that punish a quitter chemically, are not mysterious, but gambling addiction certainly is. "Dopamine" won't work as an explanation - for instance I was once hooked on building a wooden table, which sucked up two months of my free time and lots of money, and damaged my thumbs, and no doubt I was driven by the dopamine rush of learning through the repetitive process of chiseling. But gambling is assumed to be a glitch, not a wholesome obsession. In what way does it differ? The addiction is very old, I'm sure there are accounts from the 1700s, and it doesn't even require a house to reel the gambler in - it could all be about informal games and wagers, still leading to huge debts. It's tempting to blame it on dumb ideas about luck and fate, but the dumb ideas involved could be varied and complex.
That's similar to dumb ideas involving social pressure. When people have a tendency to be dumb about a thing we use the law to restrict the thing, apparently. But this involves, in effect, an authoritative declaration of "that's dumb" by law. I feel personally threatened, then, in activities such as my woodwork, which might have been an equally dumb obsession! I know nobody's at all likely to regulate woodwork, but that's only because it's relatively unpopular. I could imagine a parallel universe where woodwork (portable somehow) becomes a trend that makes a young person feel socially relevant, and then it gets regulated. I think I disapprove of this interference with people's dumb notions.
This is no longer a matter of adults or minors; this is a matter of terrorist acts committed by a satanic cult and organized crime. And the response will not be limited to legal means; we will seek to respond with the same kind of terrorist tactics.
Think of the LLM as a slightly lossy compression algorithm fed by various pattern classifiers that weight and bin inputs and outputs.
The user of the LLM provides a new input, which might or might not closely match the existing smudged together inputs to produce an output that's in the same general pattern as the outputs which would be expected among the training dataset.
Ignoring your last line, which is poorly defined, this view contradicts observable reality. It can’t explain an LLM’s ability to diagnose bugs in code it hasn’t seen before, exhibit a functional understanding of code it hasn’t seen before, explain what it’s seeing and doing to a human user, etc.
Functionally, on many suitably scoped tasks in areas like coding and mathematics, LLMs are already superintelligent relative to most humans - which may be part of why you’re having difficulty recognizing that.
I get your sentiment but a lot of people on this forum forget that a lot of us are just working for the paycheck - I don't owe my company anything.
Do I know the code base like the back of my hand? Nope. Can I confidently talk to how certain functions work? Not a chance.
Can I deploy what the business wants? Yep. Can I throw error logs into LLMs and work out the cause of issues? Mostly.
I get some of you may want to go above and beyond for your company and truly create something beautiful but then guess what - That codebase is theirs. They aren't your family. Get paid and move on
A lot of things are "so much faster" than the right thing. "Vibe traffic safety laws" are much faster than ones that increase actual traffic safety: http://propublica.org/article/trump-artificial-intelligence-... . You, your team, and colleagues are producing shiny trash at unbelievable velocity. Is that valuable?
Depends on your definition of works. I've shipped several subscription apps to iPhones/Androids that between them have thousands of users. Is the code good? Probably not. Are there glitches? You bet. But getting them onto the app store took less than a day's work and good money is coming in.
Tried selling on eBay as a regular Joe lately? Item sold for roughly $190 and I lost $45 in fees - I didn't even have a premium ad or pay for any of the boosting.
The problem is with items that have a national market but not a local one. For example - there may be very few local buyers who will pay a decent price for a vintage slide rule, but many on eBay. My general strategy is to list on FBM first for the eBay price that I hope to get, and then accept offers down to 75% of the price. If I don't get any bites after about a month I switch to eBay.
This. I was selling an obscure book once. I doubt there is anyone local that would be interested in it. It was sold on eBay within a week.
Same for a half functioning Xbox. No "normal" person would want that. But apparently, on eBay, something like a dozen people took serious interest in it, and it was sold in a few days in "parts only" condition. For sure I didn't like how much the transaction fee I paid, but at least I got rid of it for a decent amount of money.
At least in the UK, I don't lose any of the selling price to fees, 0%.
The buyer has additional buying fees on their side and postage is included in the final price.
As someone who hasn't sold on eBay in a looooong time but was thinking about it for some stuff I haven't been able to sell on Marketplace, their pages and pages of fee structuring were intimidating. What was the breakdown of that $45, if you don't mind sharing?
And, at least in the US, eBay charges their "final value fee" percentage on the order total (the sale price plus the shipping price paid by the buyer). So if the item has a 3% final value fee (the percentages differ across different categories of listings) then Ebay got $0.44 of additional fee from your $14.65 of shipping you paid to the shipping service. And there is no option to obtain a rebate on actual shipping paid, even if one purchases the shipping label from eBay themselves.
I suspect they (eBay) do this to avoid folks listing items for $1.00 with $194.00 shipping to avoid paying eBay any fees.
No - An array is a data structure that stores pre-calculated values in memory, whereas a function is executable logic that computes a result only when it is called.
There are two opposing philosophical viewpoints here. Some view mathematics as a model for understanding the real world. Some see the real world as instantiation of mathematics.
Is an array a function? From one perspective, the array satisfies the abstract requirements we use to define the word "function." From the other perspective, arrays (contiguous memory) exist and are real things, and functions (programs) exist and are something else.
An array isn't a function -- indexing an array could be a function. But an array is a data structure. An array doesn't satisfy the requirements to be a function -- people are just confusing an array with array indexing.
One thing I learned working on a system that did train positioning for the 7 Line subway in NYC is that train systems are a lot more complicated than just straight lines. They are complicated networks with custom signaling and the trains don't necessarily travel on the usual side in the usual direction at all times.
That said, in this particular case it basically was just two straight lines side by side and one of the trains derailed and travelled into the path of the other track.
Trains don't often derail on straight sections, likely either someone fucked up really bad on rail maintenance or someone sabotaged the rail.
The bulk of those are accidents involving railway crossings. There is a program to get rid of all level crossings in NL but it will take a lot of time and cost a ton of money. But there really is no way in which you can make a level crossing safe in combination with normal train speeds.
American trains are largely freight travelling long rural distances. You didn't mention it, so I presume because you didn't take it into account, so your statistics sound to me like they don't mean anything comparable.
Derailments are common is what the stats show. US derailments are largely property damage as they are freight centric, while in Europe, passenger deaths are higher due to more heavy passenger utilization. Derailment is hard to defend against.
I don't understand why people are upset. How do you monetize free users? Ads. What other websites do this? All of them. Not controversial. Not an issue.
Ads are what gets me property and news flash, they aren't going away.
It's just disappointing that this is the best society could come up with. Advertising is exploitive, this is well studied, but it is also just kind of a lame outcome.
I also wonder if the dollars and cents work out, the cost to provide the service to show the ads on is astronomical in comparison to other ad networks, but I don't have details enough to make any claims on that aspect.
reply