Not public yet — we’re going to clean it up so it’s readable and release it as blog posts. First one will be everything you need to know on building a VAE for image and video. Should be out in a few weeks. We’re figuring out the write balance between spending time writing and all the work we have on our plate for the next model.
If you’re interested in this stuff, keep an eye on field notes (our blog).
Living close to friends and having a community that knows/supports each other helps a lot but living with friends is a good way to end up with less friends. Someone you can stand being around all day is very different than someone you really enjoy spending a few hours a month with.
This isn't true at all and a pretty ridiculous statement. How someone lives in their own home has no impact on what their company is like in the outside world. Someone could be a bit of a hoarder, not do the dishes often enough, stay up to 3am listening to music none of that has anything to do with how good of a friend they are but it does matter if you live with them.
> Someone could be a bit of a hoarder, not do the dishes often enough, stay up to 3am listening to music
If someone is doing that while living with someone whom it’s bothering to the point of wanting to change living situations, there is a disconnect of empathy that betrays that it isn’t a friendship.
(Granted, my original comment was honing in on the “few hours a month” bit. That’s fine for maintaining a friendship. But not for building one. Again, it’s perfectly adequate for making acquaintances.)
Nah, the differences that can make for a dynamic friendship can be the ones that prevent cohabitation. If you're friends you don't have to care that they like to play loud music at 2 am, but you do when you live together.
I have/had friends whose pickiness/slovenliness was fine until we tried to live together, and then all that became a personality clash. It's entirely possible to have strong friendships with people you couldn't live with.
I’m not saying someone isn’t a friend if you can’t live together long term. But if you can’t “stand being around” someone “all day,” they’re clearly less than a friend.
If my friends fell on hard times, they’d have a place to crash. I cannot say that of everyone I hang out with because not all of them are people whom I’d (a) enjoy being around and (b) trust to respect my boundaries (and trust myself to be tolerant of their incongruities with my preferences).
I can attest to this. My best friend and I have known each other for almost 24 years, and we still talk/hang out regularly. We lived together for about a year in our early 20s and that did NOT go well. Luckily it didn't kill the friendship, but things were definitely tense for a while.
If you use iTunes Match or load your own MP3s every time you open the app the search field is set to “Apple Music” and the search fails until you toggle it, every time.
Buried in settings there's a way to turn off Apple Music (the subscription) and limit to only your own mp3s.
I tried to run both my music library and Apple Music subscription together, but found that when I let my subscription lapse, all my playlists got deleted, even the ones that just used my own music. Now I'm staying FAR away from apple music the subscription.
It’s because no one bothers with pay once apps anymore the only way to get customers is free app and tricking them into a subscription. Entire system raced the price people would pay for iOS software to 0
I’m building a pay-once app, but as mentioned in another comment, the business advisors don’t believe in that model.
Since I’m unemployed, I need them to approve my financial plan, and they’re really pressuring me into a subscription model. It’s crazy how many spreadsheet folk don’t think of anything but recurring revenue with a captive customer base.
Thinking for a moment what "recycling" a washing machine would look like and it's very obvious it would just mean paying a 3rd party to dump it in the 3rd world somewhere to be stripped if at all. Hard to imagine it's not causing more environmental damage by having this policy.
A washing machine has a decent amount of metal in it, that's definitely going to be recycled, as it has value. A policy like this could cause environmental damage, but saying that it's inevitable is just defeatist. In fact the manufacturer is the one with the knowledge to recycle stuff properly as they know what went into it. This is actually a way to work with the market. Any other option, other than just giving up, involves more government intervention.
There's also Stewart Brand style cradle-to-cradle design, where you build in features that allow recycling to be easy, that's really my goal when I say manufacturers should be responsible - change the design
The scrap metal yard near me definitely pays to take washing machines and dryers. There's a lot of steel scrap, some circuit boards, and a motor in there.
It’s cheap enough it’s not enough to fund development of Final Cut but also not enough money to bother spending time on it. Find it odd personally, just offering them free to keep hardware makes more sense than trying to push a tiny subscription revenue number.
> It’s cheap enough it’s not enough to fund development of Final Cut but also not enough money to bother spending time on it. Find it odd personally, just offering them free to keep hardware makes more sense than trying to push a tiny subscription revenue number.
Apple doesn't work that way.
Unlike almost all other tech companies that are organized by divisions, Apple uses a functional organizational structure.
So all of the software teams are under one head of software; there's no senior vp of the Final Cut division, for example.
For accounting purposes, all software is lumped together.
Apple made $391 billion in revenue last fiscal year; when you're making that kind of money, you can afford to do things for reasons other than the amount of money you could make.
Whatever revenue Final Cut generates isn't required to fund the Final Cut team.
> you can afford to do things for reasons other than the amount of money you could make.
This is what I'm saying and why I don't see the point in charging at all for these apps. The existence of the subscription price tag on them is evidence against what you're claiming.
> The existence of the subscription price tag on them is evidence against what you're claiming.
I disagree. Apple doesn’t need the money, but they also know consumers don’t value free apps the same way they do for pay apps.
It also plays into people’s desire for something better than what everyone has. Everyone gets Numbers, Pages and Keynote for free, but if you subscribe, you get bonus content and features.
So while Apple doesn’t need this to be a blockbuster product, they’re not going to leave money on the table either.
$129/year is surely better than $300 once, 15 years ago. Though I'm guessing not offering it for free is to keep it distinct from iMovie and to maintain some semblance of "Pro"-ness (which I'm gathering is up for debate either way.. the last time I did any actual video editing it was on Final Cut Pro 5 so I'm out of the loop)
It's the problem that the whole industry is facing - the current generation of hardware is sufficient that hardware refreshes will continue to decline, and companies that want to keep milking us for money regularly need to find a new way to do it.
> the current generation of hardware is sufficient that hardware refreshes will continue to decline
If anything, Apple is refreshing their hardware much faster now compared to the Intel days. There's literally a new MacBook Pro and MacBook Air every year. And of course there are 3-4 new iPhones every year.
I hate subscriptions as much as the next person but how would you pay for continued development of software? Do you say a person can continue to run version X forever but if they want a new version they pay for it?
Outside those sort of spaces it’s hard to name a popular piece of software still on native that isn’t a wrapped webapp.
reply