This really sucks, I hope Apple sorts it out, I wonder what one can do to put pressure on Apple - I suspect you may need a lawyer to write them in order to get your issue escalated.

I don't like that people just shrug and say this is how all big tech is.

Apple charges a premium and built their brand name on customer service.

But they have stopped caring about the customer.

I was also a loyal Apple customer for 2 decades and used to recommend them to everyone.

Now I recommend them to no one.

I've switched my phone back to android a few years ago to avoid apple lock-in. I still use an ipad pro and several macs and peripherals, sets of airpods and apple tv and what not - then I wanted to buy the watch - and was told it cannot work with any of their tablets or computer and cannot be activated without an apple phone. OK apple.

One day my debit card expired while on long overseas travel, suddenly I was unable to install apps I already paid for on my mac and other devices, update any apps, or install free apps, I could not pay with a different card because those were in a different region and would have required a region switch locking me out of a lot of content and apps. So for several months I could not install many of my apps I bought on my other sevice or update or install free apps. OK Apple.

I also remember how the base config of Apple laptops were 8gb ram and 256gb SSD when all other decent ones were on 16 and 2tb - and remember apple is supposed to be a premium brand and they're supposed to not burn you with a default config. OK apple. Then they charge you 3 times more for the upgrade from 256gb ssd to 2tb than what 2tb costs retail. OK Apple.

I still love their tablets and laptops and even the mac mini. But I've already started to mentally prepare for a switch to Linux and maybe x86 or other hardware.

Apple cannot be trusted. They are a fashion company and not a tech company any more. Jobs is dead.

Plan your exit, reduce your exposure, soon they will be so evil and dysfunctional that you will regret it.

Don't trust them with your most valuable data. Use other services. Use a diverse mix of providers, no apple exclusivity. If you tie your entire life to one cloud, especially Apple, you have set yourself up for future ruin.

Their software quality and reliability is also slowly slipping. Everything is being dumbed down. Their business processes are becoming a broken maze. Apple used to be a company that aimed to satisfy simultaneously the power user and the basic user, now they only care about optimising for the casual user mass market, power user is going to have an increasingly tough time with them. Remember it is now a fashion company, watch their keynotes and believe the vapid image they project.

The real question is whether genetics is a substantial or a negligible influence on intelligence (or proxy measures like IQ).

If genetics is less than 5 percent I would consider that something worth ignoring.

If it is 10 percent it is substantial enough to make a difference at the extremes.

If it is 20 percent that is real serious business.

Anything higher means we should really sit up and take notice of this fact.

Another issue is, what is it that you're trying to use it for?

If you're arguing against a eugenicist then it's not just about the percentage, in that case you have to distinguish between genetic and heritable. Suppose that there are some set of four genes that, in just the right combination, are worth 5 IQ points. That's, by definition, genetic, but it won't have a strong correlation with heritability because every kid has four chances to get the combination wrong. Or, if the combination does something bad, four chances to get it right even if their parents didn't. So past performance is no guarantee of future results.

By contrast, if you're trying to decide whether to allocate more resources to kids who already show promise, you care about the individual's natural potential rather than the statistical probability that it will be similar to their parents, so it doesn't matter what was more likely, it matters what actually happened. And by the point you're performing the evaluation, you can't go back in time and change things like the prenatal environment for someone who is already born, so in that context those things belong in the "nature" column and "nurture" only gets the things you could still affect.

Surely what people want to "use it for" is completely orthogonal to the science itself?

Let the science science, and policy makers make policy.

I think the problem comes when we want scientists to make policy recommendations.

I think scientists should help us determine what the facts are, not decide what to do about them.

What to do is for courts and democracy and for individuals to decide?

Even the choice of which question you want the scientists to answer is inherently political, because it frames the issue and causes the available data to contain the answer to that question instead of some other one, which influences (and therefore can be manipulated to influence) what conclusions can be drawn from the available information.

Please look at the examples in the article and consider re-calibrating your numbers here. The lower range of heritability means that it is mostly noise.

Why is that? Odd that the article claims otherwise:

> 50% may sound like a solid heritability figure, but the associated correlation is rather modest.

If someone makes a linux laptop that is as good as the a bleeding edge apple macbook air, it is shut-up&take-my-money.

But it is hard to imagine a company spending the time to smooth a linux config on their hardware config and make sure it reaches the "just works" that apple has!

Boy would I love it! Please, someone do this! Getting tired of Apple's walled garden become ever more locked up and enshittification.

I also want it. I dislike this idea "make it illegal I don't want other people to have the freedom to do something I dislike". Of you don't like unupgradable products, then don't buy them. I like upgradability - apple makes some things like the SSD non-uogradeable without much benefit. But many other parts gain different benefits when you don't try to make everything infinitely upgradable. I really want this non-enshittified macbook alternative!!!! Shut up and take my money.

I don't mind people doing things I dislike (and honestly I'd enjoy changing laptop every month as much as anyone else), I simply don't want people to damage too much the planet where I and my family live.

Can someone from the field provide examples of specific drugs or break through therapies that are approved for human use that we would not have had without breakthroughs in protein folding compute?

Same! I main macos, love the hardware, but I keep a very close eye on Linux (asahi, omarchy etc) in case Apple gets any more toxic, and I am forced to jump ship to something else, and that something else won't be windoze.

The last straw with MacOS was when my US bank cards expired, I could no longer update apps I already paid for, I could no longer install apps I already paid for. Everything was held hostage, could not install FREE apps via the appstore on macos or on ipad.

That day my eyes opened to what Apple has become.

You simply cannot trust Apple with your computing future. They're a fashion company now.

and plus one here! I don't know, I like my mac workflow but irritation and aggravation have crept in more frequently of late. Last week I was told a binary that clang++ had just produced from my own code could not be run because Apple couldn't check whether it was safe.. And what to make of power users complaining bitterly about Tahoe & liquid glass etc? I'm hanging on to Ventura for now.

Not all rich guys are part of the ORGANIZED RICH.

Some are, many/most aren't.

For some rich guys whole point of being rich is to be maximally independent.

Some billionaires are all kinds of weird flavor of Anarcho Capitalist (completely anti government), libertarian (small government), objectivist (suspicious of government and against overbearing regulations and mob control).

Not all, but many. I think there is an important distinction between independent minded successful people and crapitalists, the ones who collude with the government and enforce their fortunes via regulatory capture.

Not every rich person is obsessed with controlling the world and other people.

Many just want to live their own lives, and want as little as possible interaction with the government.

I'm not talking about a small capitalist with a nice house and a nice car.

I'm talking about the super rich.

Thr super rich have to be the government to be super rich and the little capitalists just ride the wakes made by the big guys.

These ideologies you mention are just political stances made by the rich in order to promote their measures amongst the poor.

Objectivism was made by Ayn Rand and it was promoted so much because it defended capitalism. They disseminate these ideas in order to promote their stances.

Libertarianism and ancapism are inconsistent because it pretends that large capitalists wouldnt immediately organize themselves into another large state power. A state is necessary to not have all out war between the powerful.

Ask any political science major and they dont take these ideas at face value because these ideologies cant exist as such.

They are more like life style politics than real political frameworks.

I suspect the reason they are even espoused is because they represent an immediate weakening of government regulation that can increase profits. The capitalists want people to think it can exist so they can have more power.

But a true libertarian or ancap reality is a pipe dream. Its true purpose is to create less oversight and thus more profits. Your average Joe, like you or me, has about 0 benefit from this.

This is my view too. The shareholders voted for it.

Granted, Musk (or maybe it was a couple board members) did make some strong statements that felt like threats (that if the vote didn’t go through, Musk was going to leave).

But still, it went to a vote.

> Shareholders voted for it. Don't understand how the will of Tesla Shareholders is a corporate governance failure... couldn't read the rest of the article behind paywall, but the premise seems so borked that I'm not going to bother.

Sounds like a failure on to think critically.

The board consists of long time friends of Musk's, people who are heavily invested in his other companies (and so have and want to continue maintain their positive relationship with him), and his brother.

It's not that the board can't vote, it's that the board isn't remotely independent. And according to the WSJ A number of members of the board have hung around many late nights doing drugs with him.

And to be clear it's that that their doing drugs, it's that if you're close enough with someone to be regularly doing hard drugs with them you clearly aren't independent.

"for any reason other than to cure a fatal disease" ... what about non-fatal but debilitating ? Sounds like you have a pretty absolutist view here ? What other reasonable exceptions can we imagine outside your rigid criteria ? Why should we not have nuanced discussions of the entire spectrum of reasons ?

Also hard to miss your implication of "agree with me or you are on par with a nazi"

What burden of disease are we talking about here?

Ask the question would you be comfortable allowing babies to be maimed or killed in a medical experiment to develop a treatment to some malady?

Make no mistake that is what we are talking about here. You are testing a therapy. Because you are editing the genome adverse effects of the therapy are irreversible and present at birth. Those adverse effects may include maiming or death.

So now that we have established what the stakes are, I ask again, what set of diseases do you think it is worth the risk of maiming and killing babies to develop a cure?

I think fatal monogenic diseases could be justifiable. But even there a valid argument could be raised about alternative approaches - ex. Cystic fibrosis.

Once you get beyond that things start getting dicey pretty quickly. Only a hop, skip, and a jump to nazi medical experiments on the “mentally retarded”. Check out the Belmont Report for more formalized ethical framework for medical experimentation on people.

I'm pretty happy we got the Internet!!!! 10/10 would choose again

Hehe don’t blame you for it, it took me a long time to regret the internet and I still hope to be proven wrong