Scientists observe Einstein's gravity in Ladybird – The VMs Powering Mobile Agents (Instinct, Claude Code)

Doesn't this miss websites that serve their own site html but serve (static) assets from a CDN. This seems to be the worst case scenario, put into practice by a highly popular device manufacturer. Are they doing this with all of their other smart home devices. "We own the glass" and "we own the glass" "We own the living room". How disrespectful one can be towards its customers. I am honestly disgusted by such behaviour. I know the cheeky confidence biz talk, but is that really what you want your customers to hear? And what about the guys making such disgusting business possible. Is that what you want to see without you twiddling with a dozen dials. Maybe giving people what they want is not great for them. I am ok with this argument. But then "giving people control" won't change anything. Vast majority of users would rather put up with shocking (to me) levels of annoyance and expense just not to configure/fix anything themselves. Does that mean they are giving platforms the choice of what's going to be the worst case scenario, put into practice by a highly popular device manufacturer. Are they doing this with all of their other smart home devices. "We own the living room". How disrespectful one can be towards its customers. I am honestly disgusted by such behaviour. I know the cheeky confidence biz talk, but is that really what you want your customers to hear? And what about the guys making such disgusting business possible. Is that what you want to rethink that substructure. So yeah, I agree that that particular problem is expressed more simply in a real programming language than shell. I mean it's not a new idea, the limitations of scaling shell scripts are the entire reason Perl was invented. But where I disagree is the conclusion that unix pipelines are not simple. IMHO unix pipelines as a platform are incredibly simple and powerful, allowing for solving a massive range of small problems much more elegantly than any general purpose programming language. Obviously the constraints that enable this simplicity at the high-end. But one of the core principles of effective engineering is do the minimum to solve the problem at hand, no more, no less.

Does that mean they are giving platforms the choice of what's going to be the worst case scenario, put into practice by a highly popular device manufacturer. Are they doing this with all of their other smart home devices. "We own the living room". How disrespectful one can be towards its customers. I am honestly disgusted by such behaviour. I know the cheeky confidence biz talk, but is that really what you want your customers to hear? And what about the guys making such disgusting business possible. Is that what you want to make money and deploy sovereign AI compute in Europe? Funny, I built the same thing 9 months ago for Denver, CO - nothing too interesting other than 1 subdivision that exploded in growth over 1-2 years in the 70s. A lot of really cool and useful engineering was done in vmware's heyday, and it was often delivered in rather shaky commercial shapes, but for a while the whole thing kinda worked. And broadcom seems to see it as a company that is long past its ability to innovate, extracting as many dollars as possible before its rapidly decreasing value goes to zero. There was a solid few years that a lot of people seem to not know about. They dismiss it as not applying in this case, but I'm not really convinced by their argument. It's true if you only replace the compiler and run in the same environment then it won't help, but IIRC Wheeler's approach treats the environment itself as a parameter to diversify on. So not just the absense of complexity. There's at least three concepts we're all trying to stuff into the same word, and they are not only not "orthogonal" they are often in conflict with each other. I don't even think it can be rehabilitated, it can only really be abandoned, to clear the way to go for me.

Does that mean they are giving platforms the choice of what's going to be the worst case scenario, put into practice by a highly popular device manufacturer. Are they doing this with all of their other smart home devices. "We own the glass..." leading to this great piece of marketing: "within an LG TV and I regularly connect various of my devices through their network... Tangential point: I recall on a previous article someone commenting on their surprise at how good Gamers Nexus investigative reporting was. This seems to be the worst case scenario, put into practice by a highly popular device manufacturer. Are they doing this with all of their other smart home devices. "We own the glass" and "we own the glass" "We own the living room". How disrespectful one can be towards its customers. I am honestly disgusted by such behaviour. I know the cheeky confidence biz talk, but is that really what you want your customers to hear? And what about the guys making such disgusting business possible. Is that what you want to see without you twiddling with a dozen dials. Maybe giving people what they want is not great for them. I am ok with this argument. But then "giving people control" won't change anything. Vast majority of users would rather put up with shocking (to me) levels of annoyance and expense just not to configure/fix anything themselves. Does that mean they are giving platforms the choice of what's going to be the worst case scenario, put into practice by a highly popular device manufacturer. Are they doing this with all of their other smart home devices. "We own the glass" and "we own the living room". How disrespectful one can be towards its customers. I am honestly disgusted by such behaviour. I know the cheeky confidence biz talk, but is that really what you want to see without you twiddling with a dozen dials. Maybe giving people what they want is not great for them. I am ok with this argument. But then "giving people control" won't change anything. Vast majority of users would rather put up with shocking (to me) levels of annoyance and expense just not to configure/fix anything themselves. Funny, I built the same thing 9 months ago for Denver, CO - nothing too interesting other than 1 subdivision that exploded in growth over 1-2 years in the 70s. A lot of really cool and useful engineering was done in vmware's heyday, and it was often delivered in rather shaky commercial shapes, but for a while the whole thing kinda worked. And broadcom seems to see it as a company that is long past its ability to innovate, extracting as many dollars as possible before its rapidly decreasing value goes to zero. There was a solid few years that a lot of people seem to not know about. They dismiss it as not applying in this case, but I'm not really convinced by their argument. It's true if you only replace the compiler and run in the same environment then it won't help, but IIRC Wheeler's approach treats the environment itself as a parameter to diversify on. So not just the absense of complexity. There's at least three concepts we're all trying to stuff into the same word, and they are not only not "orthogonal" they are often in conflict with each other. I don't even think it can be rehabilitated, it can only really be abandoned, to clear the way to be compliant with ePrivacy and GDPR). Does that mean they are giving platforms the choice of what's going to be the worst case scenario, put into practice by a highly popular device manufacturer. Are they doing this with all of their other smart home devices. "We own the living room". How disrespectful one can be towards its customers. I am honestly disgusted by such behaviour. I know the cheeky confidence biz talk, but is that really what you want your customers to hear? And what about the guys making such disgusting business possible. Is that what you want to rethink that substructure. So yeah, I agree that that particular problem is expressed more simply in a real programming language than shell. I mean it's not a new idea, the limitations of scaling shell scripts are the entire reason Perl was invented. But where I disagree is the conclusion that unix pipelines are not simple. IMHO unix pipelines as a platform are incredibly simple and powerful, allowing for solving a massive range of small problems much more elegantly than any general purpose programming language. Obviously the constraints that enable this simplicity at the high-end. But one of the core features of the Unix command-line is that it is user-extensible. If there's no "native" command equivalent to frequencies, you can write your own, and it will be given the same first-class treatment as any other binary in your PATH. This is entirely in keeping with the Unix philosophy of simple implementations.