I think it's your English-language comprehension which needs some brushing up. The only change here is that the Japanese government is moving to the same romanization system that most people and businesses already use. And if you've already learned Japanese, including kanji and kana, nothing changes at all.
But it's a reality that English is the primary (if not sole) focus, for historical reasons and as the global lingua franca. English is taught (poorly, from what I hear) in schools, played on train announcements, is the only Western language available on ticket machines, and is the assumed language of non-Asian visitors to the country. I was even on a couple of domestic flights a few days ago and the captain / FAs made announcements in English. It is not "arbitrary" at all.
It's the smug superiority too many "tech smart" people have.
"Why would you buy HP? Everyone knows that it stands for Horrible Product."
"Serves you right for getting a TV with built in Netflix, everyone knows that it's a backdoor to botnet!"
I don't think it's apologetics for dogpoop corporate behavior, directly. But it has that effect because those of us with knowledge enjoy being smart asses or belittling those whose ignorance rewards trends we disagree with.
People should be able to go into a store and buy a thing without researching how evil it has become in the decade or two since the last time they did. Or move into a house pre-furnished. That is a failure of legislatures, not of average Joe.
But it's anathema to the cosmopolitan multiculturalism we practice and appreciate in most of the anglosphere and parts of western Europe. Of which much of the tech world / HN posters are part of.
I'm a European immigrant to Canada, in a suburb of Vancouver which is plurality Chinese with Europeans at about 30% and its totally cool and normal.
But I'm also typing this from vacation in Japan where they famously don't welcome immigration much. But people don't seem as upset by Asian nativism compared to European. And I don't have a diplomatic way of explaining the difference - it's the "bigotry of low expectations."
The section on cyberharassment is really troubling, although with the current vitriol on AI I'm not surprised. Do wish the author mentioned the name of the site though, if only so I can avoid it (and not in the Always Sunny "oh no terrible! where?" way)
I was as curious as you were. Turns out there are only so many popular threaded discussion sites in the vein of HN on the Internet, so an educated guess is all it takes.
Without making judgment on the actions of any involved party, I do wonder why the author would choose to bring up this incident and submit it as part of a story to a site where there is a significant overlap in readership.
That incident catalyzed the fear that suppressed my desire to participate online for months. I figured that if I couldn't talk about it now, I might never participate again.
Honestly, if there's any chance the content they posted on your profile before locking you out comes close to defamation, I'd consider talking to a lawyer about it. It could be that getting one to send them a cease-and-desist letter on your behalf could take care of the problem.
Well that sucks. It's exactly the site that comes to mind when I think "most popular alternative to HN".
I've generally found conversation there to be more respectful than HN, rather than less, when discussions get heated - so I had high hopes it would be a different site, but alas.
This leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.
Edit: you know what, screw it. In the spirit of "no more self censorship", here's the link: https://lobste.rs/~7u026ne9se
I don't find the conversation to be especially disrespectful. The people in the thread in question attempted to shame him, to some extent. Shame is a social measure to coerce people who are behaving contrary to society's expectations to change their behaviour. However, while shaming him, they did not especially resort to childish name-calling or ad hominem. They reasoned with him extensively as to why his behaviour was deeply undesirable. He went so far as confessing that he did not even know the language of the PR he submitted, yet intentionally withheld information about the provenance of the code. Sometimes the shame mechanism is misused for things that should not be shamed, but this seems like a clear case of shameful behaviour that deserves social repercussion.
Sadly, it seems like nothing was learned, since he settles only for diminishing his culpability in anti-social behaviour. He goes so far as to describe, in his blog post, his code as an "AI-assisted patch". When you profess that you don't even know the language of the code that the LLM generated, there is no "assistance" about it, you're at the deepest end of vibe coding. And in submitting it to an open-source project, you're making a maintainer spend more time and effort reviewing it than you did prompting it, which is not sustainable. Moreover, if the maintainer wanted a pure-LLM-generated solution, there was nothing stopping them from hopping over and typing in a prompt themselves.
In fact, most of the comments were purely a debate with no direct attacks at all. The extent of "not respectful comments" I see are something like...
So your original comment that you "didn't want to hype up AI" was a lie, you really just wanted to pretend it was your own work and didn't want the project to be able to make a choice about it. There are good reasons why projects may not want to accept code generated by AI. They may not care. But by consciously choosing not to disclose that, you took that choice away from the project. That's pretty lousy behavior if you ask me.
"Pretty lousy behaviour if you ask me" is incredibly tame. If that's what counts for toxicity, then you're advocating for a toxicly positive carebear forum where nobody is allowed to criticise anybody else's decisions.
I agree that the discussion doesn't seem to be toxic on the whole, though not superb, although I don't know what happened following in terms of harassment, so that's up in the air for me.
It's both technically and economically unviable for Apple.
For one, Intel's x86 IP is covered by lots of patents and licensing agreements (including with AMD) and Apple wouldn't want to encumber themselves with that. Hence making their own GPUs and modems.
For two, the M-series CPUs already have extensions which improve x86 emulation performance in Rosetta.
For three, Rosetta is already slated for removal in a macOS version or two. Apple don't look backwards, they expect users and devs to move on with them after the transition period - like 32-bit code, PowerPC Rosetta, Classic environment.
Even if Rosetta wasn't being removed, everyone should still want native ARM software because these are fast, efficient CPUs and any form of emulation will harm that. And dedicated SIP blocks would only confuse the market.
For four, Boot Camp was a selling point when the Mac and OS X were still far behind Windows in terms of software support, so dual booting and virtualization was a selling point. Now many apps are cross-platform or web-based and Microsoft's strangehold on computing is reduced. A Mac running Windows was better for Apple than a Dell running Windows, but a Mac running macOS is what Apple wants - that's how they can keep in their ecosystem, charge you (and devs) for apps, and make you evangelical for their battery life.
Five, Apple have never cared much about games. Yeah there are some classics (Marathon...) and the porting toolkit for Metal now, but with the Steam Deck and game streaming being so accessible, I see no reason why Apple would accept the previous 4 cons just to appeal slightly more to a gaming market that Apple don't target and that doesn't really target Apple.
So people are probably downvoting (not me, I don't have enough karma and it wasn't a bad-faith comment!) because it's a far-fetched fantasy which goes directly against Apple's business style and would benefit almost no Mac users.
> Even if Rosetta wasn't being removed, everyone should still want native ARM software
I think this is seriously flawed logic, and part of why I don't daily a Mac anymore. As a user, I have zero leverage in porting 90% of the stuff I own to the New Hotness. Yes, that includes video games. But it also includes BBEdit and Sublime and Git Tower and dozens of other Mac apps I paid for and can't easily use anymore. That is insulting - I should be allowed to use these apps if the hardware supports it. No software nanny should have the right to tell me playtime is over.
There's no point paying for premium software that my laptop OEM uses as leverage against their own developers. I'm not going to be complicit in it even if emulation "harms" the performance. It's not unviable for Apple to implement UEFI, take Rosetta seriously or hell, even support Windows. They are a trillion dollar company, Apple could launch a satellite into fucking orbit if you gave them enough time. They simply don't want to.
> But it also includes BBEdit and Sublime and Git Tower and dozens of other Mac apps I paid for and can't easily use anymore.
Those apps all run on current Macs today--but you do need to upgrade to a current version.
Nobody should expect BBEdit 6.5 that shipped on PPC Macs in the early 2000s to run on a M4 MacBook Air.
> It's not unviable for Apple to implement UEFI, take Rosetta seriously, or, hell, even support Windows.
Apple stated it during the PPC to Intel transition and again with the Intel to ARM transition: Rosetta is a bridge technology for developers until they ship native versions of their applications. It's not a long-term solution.
Microsoft could make a deal to run ARM-based Windows on Apple Silicon hardware if they wanted to.
> They are a trillion-dollar company; Apple could launch a satellite into fucking orbit if you gave them enough time. They simply don't want to.
You're arguing against yourself: obviously, Apple's market cap is $4.16 trillion and has shipped over 400 million Macs since its introduction; it's hard to argue their strategy is "wrong" and hasn't been wildly successful.
No successful modern company has been declared dead or beleaguered more times than Apple has.
I'm confused by the first half of your first point - I understand frustration at Apple's constant "throw it out and move on" attitude, but if that did not exist I would still want software to be compiled for the CPU I'm using where possible. It's why I download amd64 instead of x86 binaries on Windows, and run CachyOS built for x86-64 v3 on my Zen 3 PC.
The second half I agree with. Apple has "their vision" of what computing should be, and you need to be ride or die with that vision. Including application deprecation, unrepairable hardware, and artificial locks to make sure you're not misbehaving. That doesn't work for a lot of people, and was something I had to accept when I bought a Macbook after a decade away from the ecosystem (it helps that I now have an army of ThinkPads, a homelab, and a gaming PC.) But if you don't want to pay lots of money to visit Apple Disneyland on their terms, no one can reasonably blame you.
Sadly, Microsoft has enshittified Windows to the point that I jumped off - that 30 year backwards compatibility isn't worth the spying and advertising (LTSC helps, but not enough) and the Linux/BSD world expect binaries to be recompiled to the point that people joke that Win32 via WINE is the Linux stable ABI.
Everything has trade offs or things that benefit the business much more than the users.
I just liked that I could re-boot my MacBook Pro into "Game Mode" back when there was an Intel chip. I liked that about Bootcamp.
I played Marathon back in the day. Ha. It was a great game, and actually had a really good plot... most video games at the time didn't (especially not other FPSs).
Escape Velocity was another great Mac game from the past. And while Maelstrom wasn't really original, it was well-executed. I don't think there was any sort of PC version of either of those.
Spectre (the first FPS I remember playing), Bolo (the first multi-player network game I remember playing), Lemmings, Myst, Dark Castle, Load Runner... all amazing classic games that were Mac-first if not Mac-only. (=
Edit: Bolo may not have been Mac-first... but that's where I played it. Ha.
In context, (Snow) Leopard was almost definitely the peak. Windows users were struggling with Vista (UAC, DWM, and Windows Update taking up an entire CPU core (of which most people had only 1) or the security issues of XP. Meanwhile Mac users had already been through the growing pains and now had a stable, pretty, powerful OS.
USB is fine for PS1/retro games; should be more than enough for AthenaEnv. The difference only matters for PS2 backups. And there're more options than those two. HDD/SSD, Ethernet, MX4SIO/SIO2SD, MMCE (SD2PSX et al).
That's true; network too. Can play digital backups (off USB/Eth) only by using POPStarter (for those unaware, POPS being Sony's PS1 emulator ripped off the single game that was officially used on). Although POPS isn't really that good (was used, experimentally, only once afterall), USB throughput isn't an issue.
reply