Edit: As I stand massively downvoted at this point in time despite my comment being entirely factually correct, I invite any potential downvoter to consider the sentence “Give me apple” before reaching for the button.
> The closest analogous sentence would be "Give apple", which works perfectly well as a choice to select in a textual medium.
Definitely no, "Give apple" is baby talk. Completely unacceptable in a choice. That's not proper English. I will die on that hill.
I'm actually shocked by the amount of people here who thinks it's acceptable and fine.
> Those are not analogous. You have added a direct object without preposition, which is not standard usage in such contexts.
The "apple" in "give apple" is a direct object without preposition. It's entirely analogous to what I wrote. Are you confused by the "me" in my sentence. "Me" is an indirect object here.
We basically have the same sentence. It just became entirely obvious that omitting the article is erroneous as soon as you had an indirect object. It's equally erroneous without it but apparently people have somehow convinced themselves it is acceptable after years of misuse in poor computer interfaces.
There is no officially sanctioned authority specifying the English language so "proper English" is not a defined concept in any way or form. You can choose to die on that hill, but you're fighting a war that doesn't even have defined sides.
> Do you actually think this is an unacceptable and grammatically incorrect way of phrasing these provided options?
Yes, I do.
That’s Sierra-like poorly phrased English to save characters in a constrained support. Completely incorrect in any context, inacceptable when you don’t have to save bits.
It’s only somewhat understandable because the zero article is used with proper name. Actually I find it interesting that you found the need to capitalise.
Well, then you are at odds with the vast majority of English-speakers, and will just have to come to terms with the fact that the language is moving on without you.
Telegraphic style is not grammatically incorrect, it’s a feature of instructional English.
Consider “insert nut into bolt”, “slice onion thinly”, or “sprinkle vinegar over chips”.
I agree that your counter example does not work, but that’s due to the ambiguity introduced by having both an indirect and direct object. In a list of short instructions, “give apple to me” would not be ungrammatical.
Sadly that is factually correct and none of the links in your reply actually supports your point.
The rule about the zero article doesn't list the case of a noun after an imperative.
The first link is about the subject, not the object and the third is about negative imperative. Why are you posting links about completely unrelated things?
Once again, using a noun without an article this way is gramaticaly incorrect.
"Share profile photo" would be grammatically incorrect as a complete sentence.
But it's perfectly grammatically correct as a command label.
English has different grammar rules in different contexts. For example, newspaper headlines omit articles all the time. That doesn't make the NYT grammatically incorrect on every page, though. Because they're using correct headline grammar, which is different from sentence grammar.
That's commonly called Grandma's rules, sometimes shortened to gram's rules. I've never seen the spelling "grammer" before, even though gram'r is arguably more correct than gram's.
> But it's perfectly grammatically correct as a command label.
Agree to disagree. The reason it sounds robotic is because it's grammaticaly incorrect. The article is not optional before the object in this sentence.
The 2nd and 3rd examples are plural. You don't need an article for plural nouns. "Fix bayonets." and "Fix the bayonet." are standard grammar. "Fix bayonet." isn't.
Well, hands up is lacking a verb, and fix bayonets is in a funny passive tense - or something - because it seems to say "generally go around looking for bayonets to fix", but means specifically "fix your bayonets". In fact hands up is like that too, the intent is "put your hands up", not just "put hands up" in the abstract.
Then there's informational signs, too. Wet floor is not an instruction. Labels generally aren't sentences.
Or instructions on signs: ring bell for assistance, return tray to counter, close gate after use.
> Or instructions on signs: ring bell for assistance, return tray to counter, close gate after use.
I have never seen this.
I have seen plenty of "Please close the gate" or "Keep the gate closed". Sometimes, the article is eluded when the noun is subject "Gate must be kept closed" but imperative + noun without an article on a sign seem highly unusual to me. It feels weird so I would definitely notice.
I have seen "ring bell for assistance" however. It's jarring everytime. I must be the strange one.
This kind of phrasing is so common (in American English directions) that I remember examples from when I was very young:
(on toothpaste) "Squeeze tube from the bottom and flatten it as you go up."
(on a kerosene heater) "Rotate wick adjuster knob clockwise until it stops."
Australians tend to prefer more conversationally phrased directions from what I've seen, e.g., the rail station signs that read "Keep off the tracks and use the walkways provided to cross. Or catch a $100 fine. Don't say we didn't warn you, mate!"
Yeah, exactly. Timeout based callbacks register a timer with the runtime, and when the timer is up, then the callback gets added to the end of the task queue (so once the timeout is up, you've got to wait for the current loop iteration to finish executing before your callback gets executed).
More likely the second than the first. It’s already the case that you technically “record” the audio at one end and then transmit it to the other. I can also forward a caller to voicemail where their message is transcribed in real time, which is fundamentally the same mechanics.
Or even more likely, as others have suggested, it’s Apple being petty and withholding features from EU users to put pressure on the EU.
>Or even more likely, as others have suggested, it’s Apple being petty and withholding features from EU users to put pressure on the EU.
The EU has threatened massive fines for creating features not available to competitors. And the EU refuses to vet a feature officially in advance.
Under such conditions, how would you distinguish being petty from complying with the law?
The EU probably imagined the outcome would be: change your business practices entirely for the EU, and make all new features open to all, immediately, perpetually, everywhere.
But that's not the norm for the vast majority of companies, for a variety of sensible reasons. Given that it's actually hard to do that, witholding new features until you're told "yes this is ok" is a rational response to the law.
In terms of feature availability, if the law says they need to make it available to all headsets in the EU, then... that's what they need to do. Waiting for an "ok" to violate the law is not sensible at all. Sure they don't have to allow it worldwide, but they do need to allow it in the EU.
Waiting the way you describe only makes sense if they think the implementation probably follows the law, but they're not sure it will be accepted. We could make that argument for privacy rules, we can't in good faith make that argument for interoperability rules.
That's not what the law says. The law says IF they make a feature available in the EU, THEN it must be available to all competitors.
The law does not say you must make all features available in the EU. Generally speaking business regulations don't force companies to offer services. They instead regulate how the service can be offered if offered.
The hidden downside of regulation is a lot of stuff doesn't get built. It's just normally not so visible, but software is distributed worldwide so we can see the effect.
> That's not what the law says. The law says IF they make a feature available in the EU, THEN it must be available to all competitors.
You misread me.
"it" in the phrase "they need to make it available to all headsets in the EU" was referring to features they release in the EU.
So yes you're interpreting the law right, and so am I.
> The hidden downside of regulation is a lot of stuff doesn't get built. It's just normally not so visible, but software is distributed worldwide so we can see the effect.
If the deciding factor in whether something gets built is whether they can lock it to another product, it's usually okay for that thing to not be built.
In this case, they obviously did build it. So now it's a matter of figuring out what the hold up is.
If it's because they don't want to, even though it would make them money and make people in the EU happy, then that's pettiness.
Ah, I see what you're saying. The thing is if it is a cut and dry violation it ought to be in principle possible to say so. And there have been features that were delayed and released and which function the same in the EU as elsewhere. So presumably the implementation is legal but plausibly wasn't.
Now there's a difference between building a feature and building interoperability. You have to actually work at it. And if you rush to do so on every feature:
1. You may modify features you didn't need to
2. You open yourself up to other countries demanding specific software changes
The simplest thing is just to make one version for the world, and wait for an ok. Big downsides to either rushing to release as is or rushing to make a change you may not need to make.
Well the question as to whether it’s a “cut-and-dried” violation depends on information Apple probably isn’t willing to share: is there a specific technical reason this technology can’t be enabled on third party headphones? If there’s a good reason (e.g. the AirPods have a chip in them that does processing on the signal without which it wouldn’t work), then it’s probably fine. If it’s just `if (headphones !== “AirPods)`, then that’s probably not
As far as I understand, the act can’t control what Apple decides to do outside of the EU. Whether Apple has products or features available outside that market means nothing because it’s scoped to that jurisdiction.
I think that whether or not they built the thing does not matter.
I don’t know anything about jurisprudence, much less EU jurisprudence. Is there anything that would make the EU demanding that Apple not restrict these features from the EU to avoid allowing competitor products illegitimate in the eyes of the court? The law would still be only directly affecting the requirements for selling their productions under the EU’s jurisdiction. However it would consider facts about their behavior outside of the EU as essential to showing their noncompliance.
From what I know, the current rules don't say anything about region locking features like apple is doing. The EU regulations might be slow in reaction time but they are not playing around. You can be sure that they will continually close loopholes and avoidance strategies until Apple (and others) aren't a gatekeeper anymore.
The way Apple and others misuse their market position to get away with anything is ridiculous. At a certain size or influence you shouldn't be both a platform for other companies and products and a participant in that platform while giving yourself all sorts of advantages.
Airpods are decent but they have most of their market share due to the massive integration gap from competitors. So shit it's impossible for anyone to compete.
I’m not sure I’d call this a loophole per se. I don’t think governments should be refusing to let you take your ball and go home if you don’t want to sell things that create more compliance work/risk. I was just curious if this kind of jurisdictional edge case matters.
Do the relevant provider-agnostic Bluetooth audio standards (in USB they’d be class devices, not sure on Bluetooth terminology) have equivalent features that Apple is refusing to just implement? I think it’s reasonable to ask Apple to support interoperability standards once the industry settles on them, but it seems weird to incentivize them to create bespoke standards that they control in an effort to reduce their market power.
This won't harm Apple or its AirPod product much, if at all. The Apple brand and its eco system is strong enough for the vast majority of average EU customers to ignore the missing features and buy the products regardless (at full price).
A missing fringe feature won't drive fans of the eco system away.
Oh, if I were travelling a lot to other countries speaking to non-english speakers and an alternative offers live translation and AirPods don't. Then this is pretty much the _first_ real argument of not buying AirPods. And once you do start switching out of the ecosystem remaining in it is much less attractive
>I’m fine with apple looking to exit the market and/or harm their product rather than comply.
It's not clear to me to what extent you disagreed with what I wrote. But, on this point I should point out that every time Apple holds back a feature citing the DMA there is much complaint in Europe.
So regardless of what you think it seems a lot of people do care. You appear to have a better understanding of the law: Apple can bring in a feature if all can use it or they can withhold the feature.
> I can also forward a caller to voicemail where their message is transcribed in real time, which is fundamentally the same mechanics.
Voicemail greetings typically inform the caller the message will be recorded, and there'a often a beep which is an indicator of recording as well. If you don't consent to recording, you can hang up without leaving a message.
My understanding is live translations do not require an active Internet connection.
> Live Translation is integrated into Messages, FaceTime, and Phone to help users communicate across languages, translating text and audio on the fly.1 Live Translation is enabled by Apple-built models that run entirely on device, so users’ personal conversations stay personal.
If it works, that is really impressive. I’m looking forward to trying it out. I’ve always wanted a real-life babelfish for eavesdropping on conversations in foreign language :)
There doesn’t even need to be anyone saying no. When you’re standing with a crowd shouting “murder! murder!” it’s much harder to say “I’m not one of the bad guys” than when you’re online and you can say “well OK, there are a few bad apples in our group, but I’m not one of them!”
I’m not aware of any rigorous modelling that supports what Goering argued though. It’s certainly possible but it’s also not a given by a long shot. FPTP in the UK is not based on the popular vote, it’s essentially the outcome of 650 mini-elections. If Nazi support was efficiently distributed, there’s a good chance they’d have won a strong majority, but if support was focused geographically, they might have ended up with fewer seats.
If you’re aware of any more accurate modelling, I’d be super interested though!
Does it seem that way? It happened at least once (but could have happened many times without "taking over"), and certainly one sort of life seemed to successfully out-compete all others. But none of that says single-origin to me.
Early on I would expect a whole lot of "horizontal gene transfer" sort of things to have taken place. So for example in addition to actual horizontal gene transfer, there are mechanisms like one organism enveloping another to eventually become organelles, co-opting products from each other, etc. All of which would act to homogenize life and make certain process ubiquitous.
Finally, there's an outside chance that "there's only one way to do it".
I think single origin event is highly likely because, for example, it's wholly conceivable that a slightly different variant of AUCG (or just one of the molecules) could've emerged and it would have similar characteristics, but not differentiated enough that one would have a very strong selective advantage over the other.
Diversity could exist in harmony and the lack of any diversity is a pretty strong signal that the only extant version is either very rare or the only to ever emerge.
Everything in nature is diverse except RNA/DNA and this fact alone is a sort of evidence.
I'm pretty sure we've checked every lifeform to see if they follow the universal genetic code, and they do. RNA is too fundamental to be a virus infection.
When you should see evidence but don't, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" doesn't apply. Otherwise absence becomes unprovable à la Russell's teapot.
Except for that you’d have to have a reasonable belief you know what to look for and where to look.
By comparison, we’ve looked nowhere (Earth is big and mostly inaccessible to humans) and don’t know what we should be looking for, since we don’t have any testable models for the origin of life yet.
And re RNA I was just giving one example of why all life might have it (ie RNA gave an evolutionary advantage so anything without RNA died). There’s all sorts of reasons why we don’t have evidence of multiple origins, not least of which is that we just haven’t looked in the right place and there could easily be life being created from scratch on this planet without even knowing about it. That’s what the entire field of synthetic biology is even about; just doing it in a lab instead of out in nature so that we can understand the conditions better.
This is about a quarter of the lifetime of the universe ago, and we don’t have any evidence at all that life has ever occurred in any other way. We’ve only really been looking for a hundred years or so, but we’ve not found any “fountain of life” where life is being created, we’ve not found evidence of any type of life that isn’t broadly related.
I absolutely agree that it’s not evidence, but I believe that on balance, it makes more sense to take our working hypothesis to be something that fits the evidence we do have, rather than believing the evidence must exist we just don’t have it.
To be clear, I’m not advocating that we don’t investigate both possibilities, and I wouldn’t put much weight behind my own guess here.
An important nuance here is that LUCA doesn't really imply there was only that one organism. There could be more organisms, it's just the one that we can trace, similar to mitochondrial Eve (see the "popular reception" section): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Well we aren't sure that it did have a single origin. But also, anything primitive enough to generate randomly is going to be viable food itself for other already existing and more evolved lifeforms, and the conditions for life to start by itself might just be a smorgasbord of energy for existing life forms that could out compete more primitive forms or alter the environmental conditions enough to prevent more life from forming. It might just not be possible for new life forms to arise in a non-sterile environment.
There is absolutely zero evidence for this either way. We assume this is the case, but there's actually no way to ever know for sure. It's completely possible that life emerged and went extinct on this planet many times. Problem is it was so long ago that any fossil evidence has been either buried so far that we can never reach it, or subducted into the mantle and melted down. Absolutely no way to tell.
It was so long ago that it would be buried deep under the ocean and we haven’t even explored well the ocean floor. And fossils wouldn’t really tell you whether there was one origin or another.
And you’re right, assuming those fossils even managed to survive in the first place and not get destroyed. And that’s ignoring that early life would have been microscopic and we wouldn’t really see fossils of that.
Do we have evidence that it stopped? Or just that we don’t know where to look and what to look for?
But even if it did, one clear argument could be that the conditions on Earth when it happened would have been very very different than the earth today. Lots more volcanic activity, lightning storms, and UV radiation. We don’t know the exact conditions needed to create life from inorganic precursors so we don’t have a solid hypothesis of was there multiple origins or a single or is it still happening today.
But given we have the beginnings of evidence of life on Mars, Titan, and Triton, and that it would make sense since we know life must arise naturally out of non-life origins (since there was no life at the Big Bang), I would venture to guess that life is both rare and common. Intelligent life also seems common although less common than life overall (other primates, dolphins, Elephants, ravens/crows, and cephalopods are all quite intelligent). Intelligence + tool use is also not uncommon but rarer (we’ve caught animals on tape using tools). Advanced industrial civilization is the only thing so far that we only have a single existence evidence for - is that unique, can there ever only be one on a planet at a time, or can there only be one ever when conditions are right? Eg we wouldn’t have gotten very far if we were on the planet earlier and didn’t have dinosaur bones to power our industry with - the jump from whale oil to nuclear/photovoltaics/wind turbines seems unlikely but maybe it would happen anyway, just longer.
reply