I told my (now 88) father that if he bought another desktop PC he was on his own.

Tough love works.

He loves his 24" iMac, it just works and I can fix things remotely if necessary (it hasn't been).

This is the way.

> Decent package manager, brew is awful compared to apt.

Use Macports. Installs itself properly out of the way in /opt. Works with the Apple frameworks (eg Python), allows multiple versions of software to be installed in parallel (using port select).

> Window snapping can only be done on Apple keyboards not on external keyboards.

Yes, you need some free 3rd party apps for affordances that should be built in. Hardly a deal breaker.

Rectangle allows you to set the hotkeys for window snapping and sizing for example.

As for scroll directions, yes, it's different to Windows, but it's the same on the Mac and iPhone. Didn't take very long to adjust.

Agreed that the new Settings app is a PITA and obviously inherited from iOS and sucks, but how often are you accessing Settings?

Looks like an awesome launch.

Given all the privacy breaches already in this space, what auditing are you planning to ensure that PII is not held anywhere in the stack after KYC/AML/ID confirmation?

This goes beyond ISO27K/HIPAA/SOC2 etc to an actual code/storage audit that confirms that PII is only held ephemerally and completely encrypted at rest otherwise, unavailable to anyone, including internal access and/or law enforcement etc.

I started on the MICOM (Microcomputer Club of Melbourne) BBS that was started and run by Peter Jetson around 1983/84, initially with a single phone line. It was home grown software, but eventually became part of Fidonet.

I found an old listing for it. I don't think Peter still runs it :)

3:633/371 Micom CBCS

It is not clear that copyright continues on the LLM output, that is, the output is not necessarily a derivative work.

So "copyleft" doesn't work on any of the output. Therefore no GPL applies.

I think you need to read the report from the US Copyright office that specifically says that it's *not* (c) copyright of the operator.

It doesn't matter if the "change this variable name" instruction ends up with the same result as a human operator using a text editor.

There is a big difference between "change this variable name" and "refactor this code base to extract a singleton".

You may as well be the MPAA right now throwing threats around sharing MP3s. We're past the point of caring and the laws will catch up with reality eventually. The US copyright office says things that get turned over in court all the time.

Tell me, how have laws “caught up with” “the [RIAA…] throwing threats around sharing MP3s?” So far as I know that’s still considered copyright infringement and the person doing it, if caught, can be liable for very substantial statutory damages.

It sounds like you really can’t handle being told “no, you can’t use an LLM for this” by someone else, even if they have every right to do so. You should probably talk to your therapist about that.

lol, ask the software industry whether or not their "past the point of caring" about the licenses on their software.

Whether it's an OSS license or a commercial license, both are dependent on copyright as the underlying IP Right.

The courts have so far (in the US) agreed with the Copyright office's reasoning.

Use an LLM as a tool, mostly OK.

Use it to create source from scratch, no copyright as the author isn't human.

Use it to modify existing software, the result is only copyright on whatever original remains.

The entire industry is right now encouraging LLM use all day everyday at big corps including mine. If your argument is the code we are producing isn't copyright of our employers you won't get very far. Call it the realpolitik of tech if you want.

Except the GPL is dependent on the author having copyright over the original software but the output of an LLM may not be covered by copyright as a derivative work.

That breaks "copyleft" entirely.

The entire basis of the OSS is licensing.

Licensing is dependent on IPR, primarily copyright.

It is very unclear whether the output of an AI tool is subject to copyright.

So if someone uses AI to refactor some code, that refactored code isn't considered a derivative work which means that the refactored source is no longer covered by the copyright, or the license that depends on that.

> It is very unclear whether the output of an AI tool is subject to copyright.

At least for those here under the jurisdiction of the US Copyright Office, the answer is rather clear. Copyright only applies to the part of a work that was contributed by a human.

See https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

For example, on page 3 there (PDF page 11): "In February 2022, the Copyright Office’s Review Board issued a final decision affirming the refusal to register a work claimed to be generated with no human involvement. [...] Since [a guidance on the matter] was issued, the Office has registered hundreds of works that incorporate AI-generated material, with the registration covering the human author’s contribution to the work."

(I'm not saying that to mean "therefore this is how it works everywhere". Indeed, I'm less familiar with my own country's jurisprudence here in Germany, but the US Copyright Office has been on my radar from reading tech news.)

What I noticed was that when I was at dinner tonight with my young twenties down to 14 nieces and nephews, every one of them knew what the Macbook Neo was, including the colors.

There was a big argument about iPad w/Pencil vs laptop, but they all said it was a good laptop for highschool/uni.

None of them have seen or used one.

That's branding.

> (Of course, PG writing an essay about being too smart for fancy watches - while knowing a lot about them - is its own signaling game, just aimed at a different audience)

He was aiming at people like the people commenting on this thread and who read the essay.

Also to the startup/entrepreneur founder-types that are actually interested in building a business that makes a qualitative improvement in the market that it works in.

But mechanical watches are very appealing to nerd/geek types as well, purely in terms of the design and engineering of the movements and the precision of the manufacture.

Complications are absolutely pointless, but making a movement that can deliver them is very appealing.