xwkd

I understand the impulse to assume that, but good software can be built with AI (as long as the right verification loops are used), and new maintainers won't necessarily drop their creations once it gets hard.

You very well may be right; development might be easy come, easy go. But maybe not! (Hopefully not, in this case. It looks cool.)

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but isn’t that what legislators do?

If the problems are solved, wouldn't you rather all those programmers use their productive systems-oriented brains on other problems?

I watched the whole commencement, and it seems that Eric Schmidt himself was booed louder than anything "AI" that came before him in the program. The students had strong reactions to almost every statement he made. If you listen to the other speakers... it's generally positive / calm. The media characterization of this event seems inaccurate, to be generous.

This really is the crux of it. If democracy rules, then power lies with the demos and by extension controlling their windows to the world.

Over the past decade, there's been a lot of regulation forcing Apple to open up their "Apple only" integrated platforms.

It used to be the case that if Apple wanted to build a walled garden / cathedral, then in order to compete in the hardware marketplace they had to provide software that didn't suck. You knew that if you bought an Apple product, there was reasonable assurance that everything was tightly integrated. If it wasn't, you'd go buy a market alternative (Android, PC). In my mind, this means that they spent a lot of time and dev resources (i.e. money) on their Frameworks. I think it showed. Time was spent on design. They focused on opening up capabilities "the right way."

Now that's pointless. If the iPhone is just an Android phone with a different coat of paint, then dev resources are going to be shifted to a place where Apple can distinguish themselves in the market, where they have platforms that they can control: Services.

This is an understandable perception, but it reveals your lack of context. By and large, children in the US are educated in the public school system. Only 6% of children in the US are homeschooled. Now, there has been a relatively recent push into home schooling as a reaction to the education problems that you mentioned, but it is not the cause. I'd encourage you to spend some time researching home schooling outcomes in the US, if you're interested. (Keep in mind that the sample is mainly representative of engaged and proactive parents.)

Critical thinking requires that the sources themselves are evaluated for bias. Anecdotally, I've come across several articles for which the bulk of citations all come from one source, and that source is a heavily political "newspaper" article. This is true for topics that are hot on all sides of whatever spectrum or division they tend to land. If Wikipedia is going to be taught to be used as a tool for research, then its governance structure should be taught and critically evaluated. The bias of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation should be taken into account.

I suspect that the bulk of readers don't give a second thought to Wikipedia's Magisterium.

Yes, let's bring these back. In fact, why don't we just build Khrushchevkas and skip the whole proletarian revolution step? We can even start wearing the funny little hats with flaps and drink until we forget about freedom or dignity. We're beyond that anyway, aren't we?

With this level of wealth inequality and these seeming like a good idea, I'd say we're gearing up for a bloody good time, to say the least.

Galileo and the church were both correct.

It's rare for an app dev (of such a popular tool) to go out of their way to respond to a random forum user. Even rarer is to address every point on their list with patience and consideration.

You must be a remarkable person and I wish you nothing but success.

Produced by a Mormon whose dissertation was supervised by an atheist Professor of the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion. This may be a data point in favor of the trustworthiness of the podcast, or it may be an argument against, depending on your own personal point of view.

If singular, this definition makes sense. If not, then I have to ask: Independent of what or whom?