You're talking as if eu officials knew about vw hiding its emissions

Not just random Europeans, but activists and nothing less than a former EU officer

Just saw it's a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46370787

This whole procedure started after Meta (that meta) reported apple to the authority, it's not even an investigation that was started by the authority of its own volition

Meta reported that they had to ask users for permission before being allowed to track what users were doing on their device.

This is literally about users having the ability to say no.

It's way too long for me, but just skimping I read that

1)apple was reported to the authority by meta, the authority then started investigating (and this is honestly extremely funny)

2)apple says that att prompt is enough to work as a gdpr consent form, meta didn't agree with this. The authority after a long investigation found apple was in wrongdoing because the att prompt breaks some rules on I don't understand what and so is not gdpr compliant - the only thing I understood is that it doesn't provide enough informations to the end user

3)authority also notes that this prompt was imposed by Apple without input from third parties, thus distorting the market because the same prompt is not required for apple's own apps

Maybe companies that break eu/local rules could respect the law

Hard to respect vague laws. Apple can't read the regulators' minds and figure out their interpretations, or instantly pivot when regulators change their minds.

You don't need to read minds to know that abusing your dominant market position in one market to disadvantage your competitors in a different market (advertising) has a very high likelihood of breaking competition rules. That's a textbook example of anti-competitive behavior.

When did they change their minds, can you provide a link to a previous regulatory decision which approved this behavior?

All laws are inherently vague. Some actions are clearly legal and some are clearly illegal. Between them, there is a gray zone, where it can be impossible to say in advance what's legal and what isn't.

If you are an amoral profit maximizer, like the average publicly traded company, it's often rational to take risks by entering the gray zone. Sometimes nobody cares that you do that. Sometimes you manage to get a favorable court ruling. And sometimes the expected gains outweigh the eventual fines.

It's almost always easy to comply with the laws by playing it safe. But shareholders don't like that.

So, like being a citizen then?

As far as I can understand, the fine is for having a prompt for 3rd party apps, but not apple's own apps. Then I'm not sure because even to me, the wording used by the authority is not entirely clear, but the issue would lie in a different treatment reserved for 3rd parties compared to 1st party apps

Yes, precisely, take a look at the summary document [1] at the bottom of the article.

> xii. As a matter of fact, revenues from App Store services increased, in terms of higher commissions collected from developers through the platform; likewise, Apple’s advertising division, which is not subject to the same stringent rules, ultimately benefited from increased revenues and higher volumes of intermediated ads

> xiii. Therefore, considering that Apple holds an absolute dominant position in the market for the supply to developers of platforms for the online distribution of apps to users of the iOS operating system, the Authority established that Apple’s conduct amounts to an exploitative abuse, in breach of Article 102 TFEU, that started in April 2021 and is still ongoing.

[1] https://en.agcm.it/dotcmsdoc/pressrelease/A561_SUMMARY.pdf

ATT isn't about a vendor tracking you across their apps (Facebook can still log you into all their apps at once). It's about using data collected by third-parties or sending data to third party trackers, which Apple doesn't do for their own ads.

Ok, that makes it clearer

Measures such going dark and similar ones are wholly supported - and pushed - by police forces around europe, not by politicians. I do agree that the politician should grow a spine and trust computer scientists for one, since they're the ones making laws after all

> I do agree that the politician should grow a spine and trust computer scientists for one

Trust the computer scientists on how to prevent crime? Uh, well that's certainly creative.

No, trust the computer scientists on what can easily be circumvented by criminals while still allowing third parties to scan private conversations. But I do suspect a bit that this is only an intended side effect

As opposed to blindly trusting the police and LEA? Yes, absolutely — I'd rather trust computer scientists.

What? You don't need VPNs to do anything of that, we have political parties and journalists doing the job from within already

Devstral 2 should be above https://mistral.ai/news/devstral-2-vibe-cli

Though I haven't checked other benchmarks and they only report swe

Devstral 2 is free from the API. That has to be a bigger point to what makes it better. The price to performance ratio is practically better in every way. Does it matter if the performance is slightly worse when it is practically free?

Yes, but if it's actually competitive that won't last that long. Mistral will do the same as google (cut their free tier by 50x or so) if they ever catch up. Financially anything else would make no sense.

Of course currently Mistral has an insane free tier, 1 billion tokens for each(?) of their models per month.