Again?

The very tl;dr is that Apple has been catering to shareholders first and foremost to the point that all else suffers. To elaborate a lil more:

The video shows an internal email from the iPhone VP of marketing that basically says they should only add features that are good enough and that what the iPhone already offers could be considered too much. “ Anything new and especially expensive needs to be a rigorously challenged before it’s allowed into the consumer phone”

Then there’s the thing where Cook allows stock buybacks which Jobs didn’t. I am not sure what this means exactly but it plays into the broader point that Jobs was a product genius and Cook is a financial genius. (also, they spent $77 billion on stock buybacks, this will be relevant in a second).

Lastly there is AI. Apple is lacking in AI chips so there was a request to double their amount, which would’ve cost about $10bn. But this request was denied. So they had to not just work with their own aging chips, but rent cloud computing infrastructure from Google.

tl;dr Cook is cooked or something idk

This is a extremely funny headline considering you have to surrender your privacy to use Instagram in the first place

I don’t even need C++ for this just give me a rm with a side dish of -rf

"You’re right, there is supposed to cheese on a cheeseburger. Please excuse my mistake“

NAT is like package delivery IRL. If you’re a server and send a package to a client without NAT, that’s like sending a delivery boy to deliver pizza, goes straight from source to destination.

But with NAT it’s like ordering a package online. It first will be delivered to a distribution center, and then a delivery warehouse in your area, and then the courier delivers packages to all people on his route.

It’s way more complex and you now have a whole bunch of points of failure.

That also sounds like a challenge

Well, the only evidence I found at a quick glance is that the movie was released about four months before ChatGPT. And it had been in production since about 2020 which is obviously way before LLMs became a widespread.

So I think that’s a strong case it wasn’t written by AI.

fun fact: This isn’t any one specific CSS framework’s doing but rather part of how JS UI libraries handle scoped CSS. When you have for example two components that have similar CSS, like one component sets button to color green, another component sets button to blue, then the compiler does this kinda thing because “real” CSS doesn’t support scoping.

So in the above example you’d get button class abcd and button class bcde.