The idea that average people can't handle incremental improvements like a password manager, MFA, full disk encryption, etc is unhealthy infantilization of people who are entirely capable of understanding the concepts, the benefits, the risks they address, and appreciating the benefits of them.
Most people just don't care enough until after they're hacked, at which point they care just enough to wish they'd done something more previously, which is just shy of enough to start doing something differently going forward.
It's not that normies are too stupid figure this out, it's that they make risk accept decisions on risks they don't thoroughly understand or care enough about to want to understand. My personal observation is that the concept of even thinking about potential future technology risks at all (let alone considering changing behavior to mitigate those risks) seems to represent an almost an almost pathological level of proactive preparation to normies, the same way that preppers building bunkers with years of food and water storage look to the rest of us.
I do understand the concepts and exactly because of that I doubt I myself would be able of airtight opsec against any determined adversary, not even state-level one. I think it's humility, you think I infantilize myself lol.
I do use password manager and disk encryption, just for case of theft. Still feels like one stupid sleepy misclick away from losing stuff and no amount of MFAs or whatever is going to save me, they actually feel like added complexity which leads to mistakes.
> That Tim Sweeney tweet cited as an example doesn’t seem out of line to me. [...] Apple ought to stick to Epic’s deliberate breaking of the App Store rules with Fortnite back in 2020. It’s not even in dispute that they flagrantly broke the rules then. If Apple wants to make that a “lifetime” ban, they should just say so.
> Citing recent tweets, like Sweeney’s, that are simply critical — even scathingly critical (or to borrow Schiller’s term, “colorful”) — just makes it look like Apple’s policy is that if a developer criticizes the App Store’s rules, Apple will punish them for speaking out. I don’t think that’s Apple’s policy at all, but some people think it is, and this situation with Epic just reinforces that.
Na. Not a good take. Apple already said the reason was because they had revoked epics account for breaking rules and did so after being made aware of the account from Timmy boys tweets.
Anything else is just Timmy adding fuel to the fire which reinforces apples decision to not allow epic to have an account.
> It would sort of feel awkward to start launching $1,300 M3-based iMacs (or $1,000 iPad Pros) months ahead of the $3,500 Vision Pro, which will have the M2. It feels natural to me that M3-based Macs and iPads will only launch after the Vision Pro, so that when the Vision Pro is announced, the M2 is still the “current” Apple silicon generation.
I personally don't see why it would be awkward. The use case envisioned for the Vision Pro is probably not the same use case that people use the MacBook Pro for. It's hard to draw an analogy, but I can't imagine professionals and content creators will reach for the Vision Pro as the first choice for their performance intensive tasks such as video editing or whatnot. They will stick to the MacBook Pro, where that extra performance will be most valued. Moreover, especially with AMD and Intel's new chips, Apple needs to release the next generation of Apple Silicon to continue to be viewed as relevant by mainstream consumers.
Gruber seems to imply that Apple is effectively competing against themselves were they to release M3 chips before a M2 Vision Pro is released, however that assumes that the Vision Pro is intended to replace/act as an alternative to iMacs or MacBooks rather than more of a complementary member of the Apple ecosystem.
