But companies will have to request consent from there users for their data to be shared to Anthropic.

Since Anthropic is a US company the GDPR compliance claims would be dubious and open to litigation by entities like NOYB.

Safari has a terrible developer experience and has been behind in implementing the various browser API for years, including AV1 support.

Safari has had AV1 support for a long time. Absolute majority of "various browser API" that they don't support are all kinds of "Web Bluetooth"-like crap that I don't need and which only introduces attack and tracking surface when supported.

Like I said, Safari has its own issues. But huge power consumption isn’t one of them.

It will never continue to 20% of worldwide revenue. No matter how long they refuse to comply with EU laws for.

GDPR has been a farce in terms of enforcement.

Because the GDPR enforcement is left to privacy agencies in the members states. The DSA is enforced at the EU level, so that might actually work.

Also a big problem is that the GPDR is a law in the style of all EU laws:

1) they are NOT laws. Despite what's published everywhere you get zero legal rights from the GPDR. A legal right is some right you have, and if someone violates that right you can ask a court to intervene. With the GPDR, there is no such right. No court will help you under the GPDR.

The executives of member state governments (and ~40 "international organizations", most famously Interpol) have the right to enforce GPDR. You can only complain to these new, totally separate from any other enforcement mechanism (ie. they're not police) organizations. And they, of course, generally don't listen.

If you go check the complaints lists are full of people complaining that their medical files were leaked by hospitals (because private doctors are in revolt to the GPDR) to various other government organizations, with very large consequences. For instance medical files being used to decide on insurance status, immigration status, unemployment/long term illness status, and family law status. There is no reaction to this, even when it does violate the GPDR. And my next paragraph is why it generally doesn't.

Second, the executives of member state governments have the right NOT to enforce GPDR. Specifically, the executive has the right to grant exceptions to the GPDR to any organization they want (including transitively: allowing a government contractor not only violate the GPDR themselves but to allow anyone else they use to violate the GPDR. For example, this is the reason Google, Amazon and Microsoft have essentially all medical files of everyone in the EU, and Palantir has some 20%)

These exceptions are made transitively AND after-the-fact. Neither of which is legal, but the only one who can complain is the government itself.

2) It means there is no point for individuals to file GPDR complaints. Normally there is "1831", which is a legal principle which refers to a particular law. Essentially that if you damage someone else by violating the law, you are responsible for that damage (ie. you can be made to pay for them). This applies to essentially every EU law. But not GPDR (and also not to other famous EU laws like DMA)

To illustrate the common problem: you go to the hospital, because you took drugs. Maybe you're scared it'll have serious consequences, whatever. Now you go to your insurance ... and they will no longer cover your treatment for heart arythmia. "It's your own fault, because you did drugs". Now what happened is that the hospital updated your medical file, and sent it to the government. Medical insurance is national, so they have access to medical files. Of course, it is a VERY serious GPDR violation that the information leaked, and with any other law this would mean that a judge will convict the hospital to pay for what you lost, say in this case, they would be forced to pay, WITHOUT the insurance covering it, your heart treatment.

Not with the GPDR. Even if you get the government to go after it, and you get them convicted, you get nothing. Nor is the insurance forced to change their decision.

This is how most new EU law works. The crucial difference is that for essentially all these laws, the EU commission holds all the cards. They then use their position of power to negotiate and come to an understanding with all these organizations. That's how they work, how they've always worked.

And it's one more reason I'm very opposed to the EU. Europeans will THOROUGLY regret giving the commission this power, that's a certainty in my mind.

Specifically what the commission does is to give companies exceptions to these rules. For example, Teresa Ribera, as well as Ursula Von Der Leyen, personally (and without any parliament approval) have the right to extend Apple's exemption to the DMA (and thus Apple's 30% cut to all transactions involving an iPhone in the EU). Both were born rich (Ursula Von Der Leyen is a member of a noble family that has been very wealthy for at least 400 years. Notably, her family's wealth survived WW2 in Germany ...) How is such enormous power in the hands of individuals used? Well, look up how and why a communist served for 8 years as the chairman of Goldman Sachs International.

The throughput and bandwidth necessary for "podcasting" is many times greater than simple radio

Not to mention the complexity of the hardware required.

It's not about VCs being scum but about investors needing a relatively fast return on investment which is understandable but also often times incompatible with investment in large scale, open source infrastructure.

If the road is privatised by the virtue of it being mostly used by private companies like Waymo (in the future) then they can foot the bill for road construction and maintenance.

Biometrics are usernames at best not passwords.

Because Flash apps were so safe.

Windows 95 was peak security. (/s)

I thought that Apple was reviewing each and every app which was the reason that justified them getting a silly 30% margin from all app revenues?

Apple only banned they app because they didn't get a 30% cut of the stolen crypto

I thought that Apple ecosystem had no bad apps as it prevented sideloading. I have heard that as reasoning to prevent it multiple times here on HN.

"A plane crashed? See! FAA regulations are useless and the agency needs to be disbanded."

The difference is nobody is saying that FAA regulations make plane crashes impossible.

Many people think what apple is doing makes malware impossible. That's not the case, the app store has plenty of malware and it's trivial to get malware on the app store.

The app store is trying to solve a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of the problem, and then it doesn't even solve that. Yes, that means it sucks ass as a solution, unfortunately.

Or, to be more clear: the problem space is getting scammed. Apple is only even trying to solve an extraordinarily small subsection of that problem space.

You don't need an app to scam someone. And if you do have an app, it doesnt have to be outside the app store. And even if it's on the app store, it doesn't have to be malicious.

Even if apple did somehow, magically, eliminate malware there would still exist perfectly legitimate apps that can be used for scamming. And that would only address a tiny part of scamming anyway, because the vast majority of scams are not done using an app.

Does this mean that because seatbelts and air bags exist to save my life in a crash I should be less careful driving?

Like staying warm, it’s all about layers.

If Apple's reviews aren't done correctly, shouldn't we then get reimbursed for the additional 30% paid by the consumer?

hOw WOulD mY graNDparNtS AvOiD getTiNG sCAmmED iF APPLE did nOT locK dOWn evEryThinG ?

Not "investing" in cryptocurrency would be a good start. =)

Apple takes a proactive stance towards apps that can even be used to access adult content. That's why Tumblr had a hard time.

Saying the mere ability to access adult content is very likely to get one shut down, but crypto wallets are fine, feels like a double standard

But have you thought of children? God forbid they give money to illegitimate scammers when legitimate one aren’t getting enough cash from legal gambling like loot boxes.

I think people are less safe overall because they believe the walled garden is safe and they let their guard down.

No LLM model has enough mitigations to prevent injections.