I expected the article to address that. Maybe it's obvious?:
Disable the daemons, delete the directory, lock down permissions to the database files / directory, lock down the daemons' permissions, delete the daemons, ...
I'm not recommending those things - I don't know what the consequence is for the system - but that's where I'd start.
"It's for you own good. It would be harmful to disable it. And you don't understand it so you shouldn't have an opinion. I trust Apple to do this safely, even if I don't want whatever this is."
Is how I'm generally greeted when I ask this sort of question.
Turn off your Mac and use a different operating system. Because it doesn't matter how you disable this feature in isolation. It is merely the current projection of Apple's opinion of its relationship with you. It's a hydra and you are going to lose the fight.
exactly, a $100B public company can have new business units that are low revenue but are treated differently than VC funded seed startups with the same revenue.
I'm not seeing how that would be a violation. Youtube has never been a "download files to my device" service. It has always been a "stream video from our servers" service. I don't see how the fact that they added the ability to save a file and gated it by a subscription would be a violation.
This isn’t about downloading videos for offline use but about background playback.
YouTube recently blocked the ability to play a video in the background (or with the screen turned off) unless you pay for premium. It just turns off the video if you leave the app, unlike other media on my iPhone.
I haven’t been able to do background play in YouTube without Premium for at least 4 years. I also recall finding Reddit threads of people having the same issue.
Yep, and I'm saying that those four years ago (or whatever time it was) I was convinced that it is against this specific App Store guideline, but alas Apple has approved it.
Just because someone broke the rule in the past, persisted in breaking the rule and is still breaking the rule today doesn't mean they get a free pass to break the rule.
AFAIK you can open the video in Firefox, which allows you to stream in the background. of course not that seamless, but at least there's still a work-around.
Did you know that it's technically against the Apple TOS to use push notifications for advertising without allowing end users to opt out of the advertising part without removing functionality, even though it's never enforced and massive companies do it all the time?
Even Apple themselves do it, I see apple send me push notifications that are ads for Apple Arcade all the time.
Or an alternative: The whole background why in Dune thinking machines are outlawed and how it came to pass, that humanity had to fight the Butlerian Jihad.
> Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
Seems sort of prescient considering what's going on today.
"Won't that be grand! Computers and programs start thinking, and the people will stop!" —Walter Gibbs, Tron (1982)
"I just realized another great thing about humans: You invented us! Giving us the opportunity to let you relax while we invented everything else." —Wheatley, Portal 2
With UBI it won't be expensive anymore. So much of the economy is simply extractive, most people's jobs are really already highly algorithmic and involve much less "thinking" than they think. Being able to sit around and think has often been a historical luxury - of the elite or those lucky enough to be subsidized by them. I suppose the common (as they all were) man of prehistory also had more time to think, which was doubtless the germ of humanity's religious and speculative impulses. But they also had to contend with a brutal world where death was around every corner.
The economy doesn't want you to think. Knowledge workers really have far too high an opinion of themselves in this regard. Your "thinking" was merely more instrumentally useful than the alternatives. Most of us have done very well while inventing nothing. But an even better day dawns.
When humans don't have to rely on their own labor to survive, more humans will think. The opportunity to afford to indulge your curiosity as if you were among the wealthy and privileged. A society that can afford the Enlightenment and its myriad avenues at scale. What else will there be to do?
UBI is not going to be a thing, ever. The ogliarchs want every penny for themselves -they'll turn you into biofeul long before they give you a single penny they're not forced to.
There are a 163 million working adults in the US. Giving each of them $10k a year is already 2 trillion dollars. And $10k is not going to allow anyone to retire.
UBI is pure fantasy, tantamount to the rapture for AI bros.
Would 1$ per year be affordable? Somewhere between that and your straw man figures would be affordable.
Also don't forget nearly every developed country has a progressive tax system and other benefits. You would flatten that when adopting UBI.
>And $10k is not going to allow anyone to retire.
You would be surprised how little some people get by on.
>UBI is pure fantasy, tantamount to the rapture for AI bros.
I don't think the AI bros give a shit about the average person. They mention UBI because it diverts the conversation away from the impact of their technology.
>Would 1$ per year be affordable? Somewhere between that and your straw man figures would be affordable.
Straw man? What about providing a concrete number is a straw man. You can wax nebulously about the benefits of UBIs as much as you want, but the economics are shaky for a population of this size.
This is one possibility, but it is not a given one. Being able to think will require capital. The whole problem here is will your thinking be worth anything and how will you feed yourself until the point it is.
Of course. You haven't really articulated a problem though. You've merely stated the obvious - the path from the present to a possible end state is not clear.
History teaches us changes for the good only happen after changes for the worse percolate deeply enough through the system. The idea that there will be hard times ahead is therefore not incompatible with my view at all, rather it is taken as a given.
Personally, I think the chances of most humanity surviving to the next century are already pretty slim (AI only marginally increases the chances of the worst case here imo). Hitler was not that far from a nuclear weapon. Our collective capacity for terror and self-destruction has only increased since 1945, while the lessons that have held the world together since increasingly fade. I have found it amusing to note that the demonization of AI has come with an accompanying valorization of human judgment as if all the evils of the world have heretofore not been the proud acts of some human somewhere, often with throngs of fellow humans in support.
Whereas, AI increasingly offers a chance that the best case (UBI, human survival through the next century), however unlikely in totality, is still far more likely than without it.
You are not incorrect. I am merely endeavoring to be optimistic. If only for the self-interested reason that I need to be able to sleep.
It helps to be optimistic I think, even if accompanied with a wry acknowledgement of futility. The future has always been frightening.
Where did you hear this? Hitler wasn't anywhere close to a nuclear weapon, Nazi Germany lacked both the necessary theoretical nuances and industrial capacity to create nuclear weapons. Even if they magically had made one, they lacked a credible delivery system for it which is its own enormous can of worms especially in the early 1940s.
Even Britain which did have good theoretical foundations and even a headstart on the American programme was obliged to merge its efforts with the Manhattan Project because it lacked the resources to do it so quickly alone. The largest empire on the planet at that point couldn't fight the Second World War at home and develop the bomb fast enough to be relevant, the Nazis had no chance.
> History teaches us changes for the good only happen after changes for the worse percolate deeply enough through the system. T
Where do you get that from? History teaches us that only when changes for the worse are so severe that the elites' heads start rolling, will change for good come.
> The idea that there will be hard times ahead is therefore not incompatible with my view at all, rather it is taken as a given.
It's a tautology, hence useless: there will be hard times ahead, followed by good times is always a tautology. What we're concerned about is if the hard times last 10 years or 10000 years.
After all saying "the idea that there will be hard times ahead" is not incompatible with your view, and is also not incompatible with the view "the idea that there will be good times ahead".
Right. I'm sure that the real reason for extracting more profits at the expense of labour is to give it back to people without getting any labour in return.
I was recently complaining to a friend of mine about the stupid stuff going on at work. I’m a corporate executive, he is a factory plant manager.
After letting me vent he took out his phone and showed me pictures of tarps and buckets collecting rain water from the holes in the ceiling the company is too cheap to fix. These are safety issues that literally could hurt someone just doing their job.
It’s helpful to remind ourselves every once in a while that we are a privileged few right now and in the grand scheme of history and there are many who have or had it way way worse. It doesn’t mean we’re not miserable, stuck in our own stress or inequality doesn’t exist. It’s important to understand what makes you fulfilled in life but also getting a reality check every once in a while is helpful too.
reply