I hate to be the worry wart, but I am worried folks are going to avoid `git rebase -i` even more now. It is such an excellent excellent UI in my opinion: it shows you the history of what is clearly, and let's you modify it as you please!
If you have anything else branching/referencing a commit after the reword commit that isn't part of the branch you are rebasing you now have all those references still pointing to the old commit and need to go through every one of them to fix them.
Which is a reminder that maybe `--update-refs` should be the default for `git rebase -i`. It's great that it is now going to be the default for both `git replay` and `git history`, and I know why git is conservative in updating defaults, but at some point there's a benefit to updating the defaults. (I'd also argue that `-i` itself should have long been the default for `git rebase`. Also, while we are at it, probably `--autosquash` should be default.)
Because Claude Code provides me more value than simply a chat agent. Claude Code is the only thing I pay for. I can do chat things with the free tier across all the LLMs.
I think people underestimate execution. When something is done well, it looks easy. But if it was so easy, why are other competitors struggling to execute the same thing?
I think you underestimate what he does. It seems simple and obvious in hindsight, but if it were so easy, others would not be so far behind. A difficult thing done well looks easy. Reminds me of when Toyota disrupted auto manufacturing.
Under Tim Cook, Apple has pretty much exclusive access to certain parts and suppliers. Apple buys up all the silicon. Competitors can’t compete at the same quality without paying a premium, which digs into margins. It’s one of the reasons why non-Apple stuff feels so cheap. This lockdown allows Apple to have huge margins compared to competitors because Apple pays a discounted rate due to sheer volume.
I’m not underestimating what he does, I’m asking what does he actually do to make it happen beyond setting priorities and holding subordinates accountable? I’m not questioning that he does many things well and right and even genius, I just want to know what those are!
I think a major difference is that Apple doesn’t see factories purely as stores where you buy the stuff they advertise they can make; it cooperates with manufacturers to get them to build things that they couldn’t make before.
They are willing to pay billions up front to get production lines built to their specifications and guarantee that they will buy X products over Y time, in exchange for exclusivity.
For example, when Apple decided they wanted to use CNC aluminum milling to build laptop frames, no factory could do that at their scale and desired precision.
And yes, you can only do that if you have lots of cash flowing around, but that’s not sufficient. You also need a process that gives you a very good chance that such investments pay out.
At Apple's scale, you basically can't operate like this. Placing an order for 50 million iPhone screens is not a consumer-grade request, you have to customize and coordinate your orders to get all 50 million delivered. It's hard to see the genius in this, the advantages you've listed are all courtesy of scale and liquidity.
Huh, courtesy of scale is because of 50 million customers were convinced that iPhone has quality enough to pay premium over 100s of other phone models. No one is stopping Dell, Acer, Asus, Samsung etc of the world to put order of 50 million widgets and get best quality at cut throat price.
> No one is stopping Dell, Acer, Asus, Samsung etc of the world to put order of 50 million widgets and get best quality at cut throat price.
That’s why I argue that’s something Apple does different. Dell, Acer, Asus, Samsung go to a manufacturer and ask them to make what they know they can make, preferably at cut throat price, while Apple goes there and says “we think you can make this, too; let’s discuss how we can get there, and how much money you’ll need for it”.
Of course, reality is more nuanced. Samsung, for instance, experiments a lot with folding displays (I expect Apple does, too, but is not satisfied with them yet), but I think it is correct in the large picture. Other manufacturers would say “we need a laptop body; let’s see who can build them, and what quality they have, Apple says “we want a laptop body made of one piece of aluminum; let’s see who we can work with to make that possible”.
And yes, having loads of money and high-margin products helps in that regard, but as I said and the post I reply to seems to acknowledge, that’s not sufficient.
Indeed, and if we pay that courtesy to it's original owner then Steve Jobs was the "genius" behind that. Tim Cook inherited the empire, and steered the resources Jobs left for him.
> No one is stopping Dell, Acer, Asus, Samsung etc of the world to put order of 50 million widgets and get best quality at cut throat price.
I don't think you are familiar with Samsung's ball game, including them in a list like this.
I bet it's more about what he didn't do. Like how a stable marriage seems boring but is the accumulation of many many right (by necessarily genius) decisions.
Not really. I’m asking why he’s a genius. When I was told that WW2 wouldnt have gone the same without George C Marshall or how amazing Teddy Roosevelt was at getting stuff done, I went and read their bios and now I understand. Cook does things different than other CEOs apparently so what are those? Other have recommended Apple In China so I’ll start there!
I think this is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory fallacy. There is a correlation to Cook and the performance, but the idea that this was all because of one single guy at the top is survivor bias. For example, other companies didn't fail at outsourcing to China because their CEOs weren't as personally involved as Cook, it was because the team as a whole didn't perform.
Looking today, Trump is as much a symptom as the problem. He didn't get there just because of who he is, he rode on the backs of all the people who voted for him, the state legislators who gerrymandered for him, the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, etc...
This is how the electronics industry always worked. I times of yore it was IBM who bought up all the capacity in various fabs then defined later what devices would be manufactured on those wafers.
Apple funds creation of new factories in return for exclusive use of the parts they produce. I believe they also prefer to negotiate pricing down to cost, then pay bonuses for meeting quantity/date goals.
Supposedly, the reason there weren't more iPod competitors back in the day was that Apple already had negotiated exclusive rights at pre-negotiated prices to buy a big chunk of the flash memory that otherwise would have been on the market.
With NVidia/OpenAI actual graphics cards did change hands. Vendor financing, like when a car dealership gives you a loan to buy a new car, is actually pretty normal.
With chip development you need scale in order to get to the edge. It makes sense to finance demand so you can get to scale it's not like it's a ponzi scheme.
Anthropic gets access to limited compute resources and Amazon gets demand to justify increased R&D and capex + feedback from the best users in the field.
I really hope they fire whoever is in charge of Liquid Glass. Whoever is leading Apple software has run out of ideas. Of all the countless things they could be doing in software, we got the useless Liquid Glass refactor.
i was getting annoyed at the state of shadcn/daisyui/the other six trillion ui patterns that have spawned since the abomination known as materialui and i actually realized liquid glass is the only meaningful step away from that we've seen in quite a long time.
it's still not quite my tempo, looks downright silly in many places, but it has grown on me just a smidge, and i think i'd receive it a little better if it wasn't fundamentally more intensive to render. i think that's a line i can't respect and it feels like a step backwards.
i don't want to wax nostalgic about windows 98 era ui's or the design patterns i see with a lot of qt apps either, like they are imo kind of ugly to me too. but i appreciated the consistency back in the 98 era, and i think a ui that restored 3d beveled looking components, were somewhat expressive but consistent is what i want.
but the world is different now. things like flutter that give people a canvas and let them ground up their entire design language undoubtedly mean consistency can only exist within an entity's control, there likely will never be a unified agreed-upon set of ui standards that span industries and personal computing and different stacks anymore. kinda amusing that improved tooling and frameworks has just resulted in a wild west of user interface design.
Regardless of your opinion of its present iteration, the whole push is for their AR/VR layered UI/UX shift - not just another random redesign they threw at the wall.
Yes, the idea seems to be to force app developers to support transparency so that any future iGlasses device has a good supply of apps from day one (contrary to what happened with Vision Pro).
Apple used to insist that different types of devices require different UI principles. This seems all the more true for a transparent device that you wear on your face while moving around trying not to bump into physical objects.
But we'll see. Perhaps the right level of transparency is situational. If you sit down with iGlasses using them as a screen you might want to reduce transparency while increasing it when you're moving around outdoors. Adjusting transparency could become as routine as adjusting audio volume.
AR will be extremely useful for real world jobs where people deal with physical reality. As opposed to office jobs, where people deal with computers and communication.
Having blueprints and 3D models and info overlayed onto what you see in the real world can be very useful for farming, construction, infrastructure, and much more. Not to mention military application.
> These things can be automatically reported at the time of purchase.
Eh, not really. In my previous house, I redid the master bath twice (because the first contractor did a bad job). They both qualified to increase my cost basis when they were done, but the first time no longer qualified after the second... That's theoretically trackable through some seriously invasive purchase recording, but realistically, not so much.
Citizenship is also trickier than it sounds. There's no full and complete register of US citizens to compare with. Better to have someone declare they are, and jail them if they vote and it turns out they aren't.
Ignoring the gamblers losing money because they lack insider information, the harm is that you changed the incentive for war. It is motivated by money for the gamblers, not military or political objectives. The difference between this and rigged sports gambling is that people die. They die on a whim and they die unnecessarily. I shouldn’t have to explain why people dying is bad.
reply