I know what really happened: Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket, and refracted light from Venus. It wasn't an alien ship, it was just an all natural flashy thing.

I read just fine. I was responding to a comment that blamed the $150 price difference from the Switch to the Switch 2 on Trump. That comment wasn't taking about some alternative timeline where Nintendo did something it hasn't or tariffs that don't apply did.

The MSRP for the Switch 2 is the same today as when the thing was announced: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomsguide.com%2Fgami...

Sure, just like language fluency should be the least important aspect of reporting, and sewing up a patient should be the least important aspect of surgery. You want to get good at those things because they are still necessary, and because you spend as little time as possible on them while doing them well.

It's also funny to see a coworker's expression the first time they walk up, you turn your head and type another three lines while listening because it takes almost no attention to empty a mental buffer with under 2% error.

Even if you only write code, there's a lot of overhead in it unless you use a write-only, syntactically dense language like some dialects of Perl. Being able to splat out verbose code quickly means you have more time to think about the next bit of code.

I give up. I explained why the distinction is NOT arbitrary, and you entirely ignored it. And you apparently think that CDs contain MP3s. You also missed that Apple allowed Epic to set up a third party store (in certain jurisdictions) ... but still required a 27% commission on those sales. That got Apple in a different set of trouble, but it was still a question of how much commission they can charge. None of these laws or courts take the position that you did, that "Apple no right to collect a commission on sales that occur within an app".

If Apple ever charged a commission for physical sales, they haven't done it for years. From https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theverge.com%2F21445... :

For on-device content, Apple obviously provides the platform, libraries, infrastructure like push notifications, updates over time, and other services. So there's a basis for them to charge a commission even if you think they should use a different sales model. The current model effectively subsidizes small-volume apps and semi-professional app developers at the expense of the really big ones.

I think a flat 30% (or 15% after a year) is too high, and it should ramp down quickly to the 10% range, and maybe eventually to 5% -- but that's a fundamentally different argument from the one you made just a comment so.

What case do you think you're taking about? It surely cannot be the Windscale fire, where they shut down the sibling reactor and built no more of the design -- describing that as "just rename a horribly unsafe plant" would be rank dishonesty.

That's a distinction without a difference. Or if there is a difference, it only emphasizes that the ruling allows app vendors to cheat the system by having an artificially small first "transaction", which was my original point.

No, we need courts to apply what is written to harder cases, where the world is not as tidy as are words written for abstract goals. As Wikipedia puts it, EU English has errors and corruptions "based on common lexical and grammatical mistranslations influenced by the native languages of its non-native English-speaking population". That's reflected in laws like this.

That's a nice, tidy theory, but it is not what this ruling says. According to this ruling, Apple gets exactly one bite at the apple of the customer-app vendor contracts.

Your interpretation squarely contradicts the law and the ruling, which both (apparently) say that Apple can collect a commission for the first sale that occurs within an app.

I have never been very impressed with the level of hype in Cerebras's self-promotion, but their ridiculously large chips currently hold the title for "biggest, baddest CPU" and will not be easy to displace.

The problem is that the EU writes terrible English. The alternative -- and bow legally binding -- interpretation is just as bizarre and illogical:

So a developer can charge a user a $1 introductory fee, and then $100 for the next fee, and apple gets a commission only on the first $1?

Dude, that's so wrong.

People in the US can promote and even advocate violence. They just can't do that when there's both the intent and likelihood of triggering imminent lawless action. See also Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), where someone who advocated lawless action was allowed to do that because the action wasn't imminent.

On the one hand, I think it's awesome and hilarious that Russia's strategic bomber fleet got so smashed.

But that fleet hasn't been moving the front lines in Ukraine. Troops on the ground have been doing that, and apparently those front lines are still moving in Russia's favor. Also, strategic bombers being destroyed shifts the calculus of Russia's engagement with third countries. I'm worried that it increases the risk of broader war without significant progress in Ukraine. Maybe I'll be wrong, and Ukraine will use the same kind of tactic in other situations that do motivate Russia/Putin to come to a ceasefire and peace -- but so far it doesn't look likely.