I know, I was making fun of it. It's a "'no way to solve this', says only country which hasn't solved it yet" kind of problem which exists solely due to American exceptionalism.
On one of my machines, I don’t know if I could even make it fit. So it’s a no-brainer to not update on that one, if they are going to force an extra 14GB download on me.
Perhaps eventually. I know I’m in a “closed ecosystem,” and that removes a fair bit of choice in a variety of places. But Apple is known to walk bad decisions back at times. This update is an example, with liquid glass. Another recent one was the iCloud private email planned domain change being scrapped.
Liquid Glass was rushed out because their flagship WWDC feature, Apple Intelligence, wasn’t ready as expected. They knew they didn’t finish refining Glass as they had intended to. They had unfinished work with Glass that got pushed to this year due to the last minute change in direction. The refinements we got weren’t only the product of feedback and they already intended to revisit the design.
This situation is a bit different where they’ve taken several years delay now to refine their AI strategy before releasing it.
If they let users permanently opt out of their AI rollouts this early on, their stock will plummet. They’re going to focus on making it better to drive adoption and value instead of letting people remove themselves from exposure to what they have in the pipeline.
I mean they added a slider to make Liquid Glass slightly less bad, but the “good” end is just the old “reduce transparency” option. They’ve got a lot of progress to make, if they are ever going to give us back the pre-liquid-glass UI density.
By that logic why not fill the hard drive with OS data? This is a company mind you that still sells some laptops with a base configuration of 256GB, so 10-20GB isn't an insignificant amount to many users especially when it's taken by a feature they may not even use.
Many apps (like dictation apps) ship with their own models totally separate from Apple Intelligence.
For example, Co-Typist [1] is very useful, but it requires a model installed with it, ranging from Gemma 3 1B at 0.8 GB to Gemma 4 26B A4B Pro at 15.7 GB. It recommended Gemma E2B (3.2 GB) for my 16 GB, M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
It works really well; the autocompletion is so good, it knows what I'm going to type before I do!
Here's the thing: you may not be aware of the amount of storage being used by models in various 3rd-party apps.
The open-source app What The Model [2] scans your machine and reports all the models it finds and gives you the total amount of storage being used.
Relativity is weird. If you keep accelerating, at some point the objects stop accelerating toward you faster but the distances get shorter.
To an outside observer, the trip might have taken you millions or billions of years while to you it was only ten or twenty.
It’s helpful to think about the limit. To light, which travels at the speed of light, it arrives at your retina the exact moment it was created in the core of the sun. From our perspective, it took almost a million years (about a million years to make it from the core to the convective region, then another few minutes to travel from there to Earth).
Nope! Far, far longer. I don’t know the specifics that the GP used but Andromeda is about 2,500,000ly away. An observer on Earth must perceive you as taking more than 2,500,000 years to get there, as you would have to have exceeded the speed of light to arrive any sooner.
At 1g of constant acceleration you can reach Andromeda in just under 15 years of experienced time. An observer on Earth will perceive you as having taken a hair over 2,500,000 years to get there. You can get there arbitrarily quickly; at 10g it would take a 1 year 9 months. But an external observer on either planet will see you taking closer and closer to 2,500,000 years to make it the full distance.
> Of course that as you get closer to C, the traveling object will experience time dilation (relative to observer), so the time passed will be less. At 99.999% C, the traveler would take ~11,000 years to arrive to Andromeda.
When you say constant 1g acceleration, do you mean acceleration well past the speed of light? I thought we were talking about all speeds less than the speed of light.
You can accelerate constantly at 1g without ever reaching the speed of light. A constant acceleration takes you from non-relativistic speeds to 0.1c, then to 0.9c, then to 0.999c, then to 0.9999c, , and so on, without ever reaching 1c (impossible if you have mass) -- but it takes increasingly more energy to accelerate.
The Lorentz factor, which governs time dilation and length contraction, is calculated as (1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)), where v is the relative velocity of the object and c is the speed of light. You can replace (v^2 / c^2) with the factor beta^2, where beta is the ratio of v to c, e.g. 0.99999 in this case. Since (1 / sqrt (1 - 0.999...)) grows without bound in the limit as beta approaches (but doesn't reach) 1, if you keep accelerating, the time dilation keeps getting larger, without limits. It just takes a LOT of energy to do so.
I was still at a loss for the answer to how it could take 11k vs 28 years or so. I asked AI. lol
The thing I didn’t realize is the massive difference between 99.999% vs 99.9999% of the speed of light. I took 99.999% to mean "effectively the speed of light.” Relativity is weird.
yeah but its statistical luck, a few photons keep winning the roulette wheel and pop out very quickly; and a few unlucky ones are still rattling around in there from year 1! it's more like winning a raffle than waiting in a queue
You are confused. Yes, lots of people say that here, but the intention is almost never to justify immoral behavior. Rather the goal is to delegitimize capitalism by blaming it for the immoral behavior.
They both communicate the same thing because they both start with “buy.” They communicate Ownership and collapse to the same thing to a normal consumer: implied ownership of the game. Insisting that the ownership is of the license and it says it on the button doesn’t really help, because no reasonable person thinks that a “purchased” license can be revoked for any reason or no reason at all. Why doesn’t anybody think that? Because “owning” a license implies you actually control it. But a license you can’t control at all means you own NOTHING! Not even a license. So “buy license" miscommunicates in the same way as “buy.”
Then maybe is should be forced to say: “Buy revocable license” and require the user to answer randomized multiple choice questions regarding the terms of the license that act in opposition to the purchaser. Collect metrics on wrong answers and if greater than say, 15% of people can’t determine what they are actually handing over money for, fine and require additional clarity.
Or, just flip the tables and say the historical meaning of buy implies transfer of ownership in exchange for some trade. Since the seller no longer owns the items that was sold in the transaction, they have no additional rights that are covered by other areas of the law (such as copyright). First sale applies and if the seller doesn’t provide a mechanism to facilitate that sale, the buyer is free to exercise that right in whatever way they see fit.
Licenses are commonly understood to have variable duration, as specified by the license.
I get that people want to be able to purchase games forever, but this linguistic argument seems tortured concern trolling. maybe Im wrong, but are there even people confused by what they are getting when they pay for a modern online game? It seems like the bigger issues is people know, but dont like those terms.
There is some string of terms that accurately describes the state of current game sales. Even if it is used, most of the people upset by the issue will not be happy.
I'd be very surprised if the average buyer of Call of Shooty was aware that their game could be taken away from them (for reasons (or lack thereof) other than maybe getting their account banned for cheating).
I'd also be fairly surprised if that average buyer cared all that much. For many the life cycle of any random game is short enough that it doesn't matter whether or not it gets revoked, just so long as that's far enough into the future (and Sony probably knows that). So long as the average buyer doesn't have to think about it, since any revocation is so far into the future as to probably not matter, the average buyer won't care.
There's some media attention from the people who do care and want Sony et al. to do better, but they alone don't have the power to fight back against Sony, since even though the rest of the market might even agree that the current situation is bad, it's very difficult to mobilise people into actually doing anything (and what are you even supposed to to beyond 'voting with your wallet'?).
I think the average buyer of a online multiplayer game is loosely aware that the company could stop hosting it. Probably less aware that their single player content could disappear.
I personally think it is hard to mobilize people because the overwhelming majority simply dont care. If they did, yes, they could vote with their wallets. Nobody will die without Call of Shooty 10.
We are in this weird twilight zone where some people say they dont like products, but keep buying them.
Whether or not people understand it (I’m guess most don’t), we’ve lost something and been handed an inferior alternative with significant disadvantages. I have CDs from the 80s that still work. Plenty of games on disc and cart that still work.
Is not having to get up to change a disc worth giving up libraries, resale, lending, and not having stuff taken away at the whim of the publisher?
temporary implies it is temporal -- there is a time limit.
revokable means that it's fine until the evil megacorp says it isn't.
to steal from an earlier thread -- my hunting license is temporary: I know it is only good for this year. No ambiguity there, no surprises, and everyone agreed on this upfront.
But seriously, your assumptions about how the USA works are just wrong. Voting is not handled at the federal level. Citizenship is.
reply