100%. Love this approach by Anthropic. The Meta "monetization league" is assembling at OpenAI and doing what they've done best at Meta.

However, I do think we need to take Anthropic's word with a grain of salt, too. To say they're fully working in the user's interest has yet to be proven. This trust would require a lot of effort to be earned. Once the companies intends to or becomes public, incentives change, investors expect money and throwing your users under the bus is a tried and tested way of increasing shareholder value.

I wonder the same. Have been reading up on literature related to ADD/ADHD diagnosis and prescription stimulants. It seems like there is little to no friction in getting a legit positive diagnosis. One can pretend to have issues securing a medication that is only meant for strong ADHD patients. I know someone who was able to get their hand on a lot of such stimulants, got addicted, went over the typical dosage, and is now suffering from psychosis.

lol, that's the first pdf link i could find of this article.

I wonder what's the false negative rate for these checklists.

Thanks for sharing, will read these.

https://spectator.com/article/how-a-fraudulent-experiment-se... Goes over things pretty well - the experiment seems to have been almost completely fraudulent with fabricated or heavily cherry-picked data.

An experiment where they sent normal people to mental institutes to see if professionals would be able to identify them.

And interestingly, how often the patients in the ward could spot these normal people while the medical staff did not.

But they did use early builds of liquid glass and that should've triggered nausea and someone must've said "Don't"... yet they still did. You don't have to have gone through Windows Vista time to understand UI/UX (least of all, Apple Designers).

> But they did use early builds of liquid glass

Is this known to be true or speculated? I don't know how this process is handled at Apple specifically, however, generally decision-makers are highly detached from UX. One would think that, especially for an overhaul initiative, "important" people would daily-drive dev/nightly builds to wear off the cool factor and experience the not so pleasant annoyances, but generally they shield themselves from that and mostly look at the "cool demos".

Regardless, as far as I am aware Apple has a tight product release cadence and ties feature gates to that. Obviously hardware readiness gates are much earlier than software, but I can easily imagine situations where "yes men" report "good enough" at gates relevant for marketing, feature gets greenlit, but then gets half-assed for the actual release. Recall iphones crashing at the initial release demo? Might as well be history rhyming.

I miss the time of Exposé and Mission Control, 3 finger drag, touch-to-tap, force click, even natural scrolling, Macbook Air, Magnetic magsafe.

Then something changed.

Touch bar was a miss. LaunchPad was a miss. I don't see a use of "Stage manager". iPad has gone to shit. Widgets came back, on mac... for no reason.

In Tahoe, the new spotlight search is one of the better features of Tahoe but i am fine with Alfred. But by and large, there are more annoyances in Tahoe than improvements.

For the iPhone and liquid glass, I am convinced that it was done to force people to upgrade to a new device. There *has* to be a reason to upgrade, and when hardware and software feature plateau, then we even the planned obsolescence era.

The website shows no additional screens. hard to make up my mind about it.

same idea here

Existing users, distribution, and brand are a big part of acquisition. Graphite is used mainly by larger orgs.

Also, graphite isn't just "screenshots"; it's a pretty complicated product.