Yes, 27 is the final Rosetta version. The warnings are worded in a way that makes sense if you already know that but are easy to misunderstand if you don’t. I think they initially didn’t want to commit to the next version being called macOS 28. The final 27 release has started explicitly saying it’s going away in 28 which makes it a lot more straightforward.
We were already there. For most people, we are still there. For most devices (especially popular ones, with enough manufacturing volume) there's just enough hardening, downgrade prevention, encrypted or signed firmware blobs, on top of already rare reverse engineering skills and patience, to make it infeasible for most people to give it a crack. Using an LLM for that also isn't a mainstream idea either (plus you're unlikely to have a Claude subscription if you're not a software developer in the first place).
Open systems are great and all in the idea, but the facts are that for profit companies do the research and produce most of the things.
>We were already there. For most people, we are still there. For most devices (especially popular ones, with enough manufacturing volume) there's just enough hardening, downgrade prevention, encrypted or signed firmware blobs, on top of already rare reverse engineering skills and patience, to make it infeasible for most people to give it a crack.
This should be illegal. Any politicians who run on [economically, financially] doing to these companies what is being done to Russia and Iran, if they refuse to immediately publish their hardware private keys, I will vote for. Up to and including jailing boards, stiffing bond and equity holders, and selling their assets as scrap, if they choose to purge their keys to prevent disclosure or if disclosure is impossible due to technical design. Maybe if a few trillion dollars worth of businesses suddenly vaporize into legal smoke, the remainders will start behaving for the next hundred years...
I think that this is not true -- the achievements mentioned here are hardly ground breaking and mostly build on work that was already done years before LLMs were a thing.
There are things that the "open source movement" dreams about, and one just has to search around... E.g. like codecs, Qualcomm's aptX lossless, adaptative, and other more recent variations.
It's not new capabilities, it's new levels of access. Reverse engineering this stuff used to be a very tedious process which required a lot of specialised skill. Which is why most devices haven't been reverse engineered or hacked despite being full of low hanging fruit.
"only ever" feels like a stretch. Libratbag, QMK, OpenWRT, Nouveau and Asahi all took up the task without much or any AI help. They're not all just dreamers.
Did the open source movement dream of outsourcing what they loved to do themselves for free, as in both beer and freedom, to products which are trained on the corpus of their own knowledge without any consent and sold by behemoth corporations on a subscription basis?
There's a difference between the people sitting at the table and the mice scurrying around catching the crumbs. Freedom is sitting at the table. The OP, sadly, is catching the crumbs.
Kinda talking about pretty squishy things here, saying something is "patently false" in the context feels pretty stifling, or at least uncharitable.
Like, what, we are all supposed to close the book on this abstract, very new question. Something that by any approximation is extremely nuanced and also pretty meaningful? Like, "oh OK, well I guess that's that then!"
Your quote shows someone BELOW the line being able to do something. That could not be considered amplification because multiplying a skill of 0 doesn’t get you anywhere. But if you want to see it that way, it doesn’t bother me.
The Tao reference is someone far ABOVE the line getting excellent results from the LLM.
So in this case the Tao example refutes the GGP claim.
Is it also not greedy to demand virtually unlimited support from companies? Why should Apple spend money on this random utility that virtually nobody uses?
This is like saying to a cop that's pulled you over for speeding "I pay for your salary".
Yes, you do. But so do a bunch of other people do as well. And someone has to decide how to balance the needs of the many, which is where management / governance comes it: and said management has decided that the resources will be spent, or not spent, on certain things.
> It's more like I report a crime and the cops don't do anything about it, a situation in which I feel fairly justified being upset?
Sure. With cops, a public service. But Apple is not a public service (this is an analogy after all).
You gave them money for what they offered at a particular point in time because you thought it provided you value; has Apple taken away anything that you purchased? Did they go from x.2 to x.3 and break/remove something? That's certainly a dick move. But you are still getting what you paid for.
Apple is free to change its offerings in the future based on what it thinks its customers need/want, and you are free to re-evaluate whether those changes still provide you with value, and whether you want to continue giving them money. "I got X in the past so I should continue getting X forever into the future" has never really been promised by any software vendor.
Yes, you've made the right call trusting Apple with this, the company with famously-good backwards-compatibility and long-lived support for third-party software /s
Maybe; if it's a Js / electron app there's a lower boundary though. The main issue is that the web (html/css) is the most versatile UX platform out there, nothing even comes close. You can't build most web apps' unique visual style in any other platform. Yet. Let alone have it crossplatform.
reply