I think there’s a simpler explanation. Apple’s always uses a type of product metric that most companies don’t use. Those competitor products don’t care about phone battery drain, so they aren’t even trying to do anything about it.
Please re-read what you’ve written in these two comments with a critical eye. You’re speaking from a lack of knowledge without very much care and reaching incorrect conclusions that agree with your initial bias. When someone else does the work of helping nudge you towards reality you seem to be doing a poor job correcting. Sorry if this comes across as rude, it’s said with the kindest of intentions.
So I did quick excel math - I took just the US companies from top 100, sumed them and then I summed everything else (the entire list, not just top 100) - including tiktok - and the ratio is almost 3 to one against US companies in total.
In fact Meta alone is fined more than everyone else combined.
The fact that the EU just doesn't have big companies in the fields that are more likely to be abusive with customer data.
It's a bit like the sweatshop argument. If your company wins out by using sweatshops, yeah, you're going to end up with the billion dollar argument. But if a certain market doesn't want stuff produced by sweatshops, and they decide to dis-incentivize it by tariffing it, that:
Thats all a matter of perspective, not something I am willing to argue. EU has a history of making protectionist legislation under the guise of protecting its members, eg. the whole GMO story, and I can see how someone can make an argument here. If it is valid or not is up to you I guess.
But saying that the fines are mostly towards EU members when over 2/3 is fined towards US companies is misrepresenting the data and the opposing viewpoint.
You were demonstrably wrong three times in your comment, misrepresenting the reality of both sides of the argument and the prevailing opinion of humanity. The fact that one side doesn’t have the tools to confidently reach that conclusion is the problem.
You’re probably going to think I’m very presumptuous but I’m going to say this anyway in case it is helpful for you.
If people are frequently offended when you speak on a topic you’re probably being offensive somehow through content or delivery.
In my experience the thought “[they] feel threatened anytime something is expressed that differs from […]” is not accurate and it also turns off your brain on trying to figure out what is actually going on. I can recommend from personal experience a small apology and transition to more listening in that moment. If more feels appropriate, giving it some time and space and re-engaging gently to discover what went on for them in that moment can yield a lot of value for both sides.
i appreciate the response, this is something i have already considered and i agree there could have been some element to my tone or delivery that contributes to their reaction, though i also don't necessarily claim responsibility for their reaction.
i agree the wording on my post you're replying to comes across the way you're describing. i have more nuanced thoughts about this but it's a lot to type, but will end by saying thank you for the kindly worded comment
I think you're accidentally telling on yourself here. You're looking at somebody getting a result which is surprising to you but rather than being curious about how they might be on to something you're turning off your brain and assuming they're malfunctioning.
Something being in a category, such as "a study", doesn't tell you much about a thing. If you read multiple studies on vaccine safety critically and reason about them and what experts are saying about them, IMO most functional human being are going to reach the same general conclusion about vaccine safety. If you do the same thing on studies about seed oils or aspartame you're also going to come to the conclusion that they're safe! If you're not reaching these same results it doesn't necessary mean you're the one who is malfunctioning but you should seriously consider it and try again to learn what you might not know.
From my perspective iOS already has pretty good call/text blocking. Are you sure you know all the existing features?
For calling, there’s a built-in contacts only mode behind a single opt-in switch, this is what I use. There’s also a privacy preserving app system that allows you to install third party apps which provide block lists and labeling to the phone app.
Messages is similar, except with unknowns being put in a separate list and an older and simpler static block list, though it does also support reporting the message as junk which presumably means all iOS devices have a bit of a shared message spam filter.
People want to be called from unknown numbers from time to time. A pizza delivery being outside, my doctor with test results etc. Blocking everyone but contacts is in the realm of "you're holding it wrong" kinda excuse.
Messages going to a different list helps little when iMessage is full of 0-day exploits that happen as soon as your phone receive the message.
There is a support for a third party blocking list which can both hint and block marketers etc (At least for phone calls not sure if it works with texts).
It’s not a well known nor heavily advertised feature - I learned about it from carrier commercial who provides app of their own.
> From my perspective iOS already has pretty good call/text blocking. Are you sure you know all the existing features?
For context I'm comparing what's in place in iOS with what Android has had for at least a couple releases. With that familiarity, iOS's anti-spam features appear rudimentary at best.
> For calling, there’s a built-in contacts only mode behind a single opt-in switch
Contacts-only incoming calls and texts is a clunky design. Businesses (doctors offices, delivery services come to mind) frequently use random 1-800 numbers for their outgoing calls. Having those _and_ spam clutter up one's voicemail is far from ideal; the expectation is that the user will spend their time going through voicemail and delete spam. Live voicemail is definitely an improvement but even if I choose to block an incoming spam call, the voicemail is still left on my phone. Android lets one end the call as soon as spam is detected and there's no action needed after the fact.
> There’s also a privacy preserving app system that allows you to install third party apps which provide block lists and labeling to the phone app.
This is what I was referring to in my original post. On Android suspected spam calls and texts are labelled as such by default. Why does Apple expect users to install third party apps for this? It should at least be an opt-in feature that ships as part of iOS.
The problem I have with these is that unknown but wanted senders get squelched with the spam. I get MFA tokens via SMS from assorted random numbers, or worse calls from them (looking at you Citibank).
That’s why the category is called “unknown” and not “unwanted”. There’s no way to know in advance whether a sender is wanted or not, so people should be actively checking that inbox instead.
Hence the complaints that Apple isn’t doing enough. It’s technically possible to know ahead of time if an SMS or call comes from a fraud operation or from an MFA number. Personally I don’t know if the phone is the right place to handle that. Seems like a carrier problem. But, other people in this thread are saying Android has better capabilities of filtering this abuse, so Apple ought to keep up.
Is this feature globally available? Because I receive an embarrassing amount of spam calls and never had a single of them blocked. The same goes for SMS.
Just a bystander but you just quoted this:
> My whole premise is that it doesn’t have better than human intelligence. Everyone glosses over how we go from ChatGPT 4 failing its own unit tests to geometrically self-improving hyper-intelligence.
Then did exactly what the quote is talking about, assuming we achieve better than human intelligence.
> But you seem to think there's some barrier that means that even if it was a better-than-human programmer (implicitly for general-intelligence reasons), it wouldn't be able to geometrically self-improve.
The question is how exactly do we go from a below human intelligence to an above human intelligence. Without a clear path to that reality, making trade offs in order to protect against low probability worse case scenarios which require it doesn’t look like a good deal.
The reality that right now human level intelligences have a hard time even keeping these below human intelligence systems operating seems like a useful checkpoint. Maybe we can hold off on doing distasteful things like consolidating control until they can at least wipe their own bottoms as it were.
> Then did exactly what the quote is talking about, assuming we achieve better than human intelligence.
Well, sure, because a) the article covers that b) their whole argument makes no sense if their position is that AI simply can't ever achieve better than human intelligence. If the AI is never intelligent enough to improve its own code then none of the operational complexity stuff matters!
> The question is how exactly do we go from a below human intelligence to an above human intelligence.
The same way we got to the current level of artificial intelligence; old-fashioned hard work by smart people. The point is that, if you accept that slightly-better-than-human AI would be geometrically self-improving, then by the time we have slightly-better-than-human AI it's too late to do anything.
