foregoneconclusion
About
- Username
- foregoneconclusion
- Joined
- Visits
- 249
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 10,793
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 3,048
Reactions
Comments
-
Maybe Trump wants a piece of that 50% US ownership pie. A big, beautiful piece.
-
Why wouldn’t customers expect a big discount? Epic, Spotify, Tinder etc. have spent the last five years yelling and and screaming about how Apple’s commission forces them to have higher prices.
-
blastdoor said: Today, the AI features Apple desperately wants and needs to bring to their products exist in products from other companies but Apple's project management/leadership appears to be failing big time. Apple can turn it around, and I …
-
Bottom line: unless AI programs are only using public domain material and/or material with the appropriate rights permissions secured then it's nothing more than theft. The LLMs themselves have no value whatsoever without the database used for train…
-
AppleInsider said: According to Sunday's "Power On" newsletter from Bloomberg, sources within Apple believe that WWDC will be a disappointment form an AI perspective. In the wake of the Google I/O keynote offering massive new AI features and adv…
-
damn_its_hot said: foregoneconclusion said: Tahoe? Seems a bit blah for such a major release. Have you ever been to Tahoe? Didn’t think so! It’s a beautiful place (except when it’s snowing). As a former resident (& it’s proximit…
-
The "power" comes from the database that is used to train the LLM. The LLM itself is worthless without it.
-
Tahoe? Seems a bit blah for such a major release.
-
"Originally, Apple prevented developers from telling consumers about ways to make payments for services and features that didn't go through Apple's systems." This is not a factual statement. Apple prevented them from doing so in the app and in the…
-
The key point, which is made in this article, is that the 1st Trump administration withdrew from NAFTA/TPP trade agreements and did new deals which were publicly promoted by Donald Trump as being significantly better than what they replaced. So it d…
-
mfryd said: The bottom line is that even if it was a crime for the President to defy a court order, he cannot be prosecuted for it, and the US Marshalls would have no jurisdiction over the President. Go back to the original post from Randomin…
-
mfryd said: foregoneconclusion said: randominternetperson said: What happens when the Sec of Homeland Security orders her U.S. Customs and Border Production officers to collect tariff revenue from ships in port after a court as sai…
-
randominternetperson said: What happens when the Sec of Homeland Security orders her U.S. Customs and Border Production officers to collect tariff revenue from ships in port after a court as said those tariffs are null and void? That would be…
-
Jim_MAY said: The Trump Administration will advance an appeal to the Supreme Court. Congress gave tariff powers to the Presidents long ago. The Trump administration declared an emergency under the IEEPA statute to levy tariffs. But the IEE…
-
"Apple has long been the butt of the joke for gamers" For AAA gamers only. Mobile games lapped the PC/console industry for revenue a long time ago. When Microsoft bought Activision/Blizzard, Candy Crush was the second most lucrative franchise that …
-
Trade vandalism is the more accurate description.
-
More proof that the President levying tariffs under the IEEPA is illegal. Not only is there no mention of tariffs or taxes in the language of the IEEPA, but there is also no mention of targeting domestic companies. The IEEPA was intended to be used …
-
blastdoor said: of course it’s possible. It would just be more expensive to do that than pay the tariff, especially given that the tariff might not be there by the time the US supply chain is built. A. Tariffs make imported materials and part…
-
Whatever it turns out to be, it won't be worth $6.5 billion.
-
Trump doesn’t have legal authority to levy tariffs. The emergency power statute that he’s citing is for sanctions only. No mention of of tariff or taxation power in the language so it fails the Supreme Court’s Major Questions Doctrine.