MudMan

It's just nostalgia. The vast majority of those were either entirely devoid of content or entirely unusable.

Also, mostly Flash, so disqualified for human consumption by default.

There's only one mention of the word "slop" attributed to Nadella in the entire piece. It's this:

"We need to get beyond the arguments of slop vs sophistication," Nadella laments, emphasizing hopes that society will become more accepting of AI, or what Nadella describes as "cognitive amplifier tools." "...and develop a new equilibrium in terms of our “theory of the mind” that accounts for humans being equipped with these new cognitive amplifier tools as we relate to each other."

Now, that's entirely meaningless corpospeak, but it's also very clearly not "Nadella wants you to stop saying slop".

But the article needed bait and nobody reads past the clickbait headline anymore. The intellectual laziness fuelling the slop isn't exclusive of AI usage.

We suck at this.

I propose an oath, ok? You commit to not using GenAI in 2026... and also to not EVER comment on an article or social media post you haven't read in full.

Deal?

Nobody ever cheered for Windows. I was there at the Windows 95 launch and everybody hated it and its problems were "impossible to ignore" and it was an embarrassing failure in tech circles and the BSOD was a meme.

Remind me again how that went.

I genuinely don't know that I follow that explanation. For one thing, what reasons would there be to ban paid blind boxes, online or offline, while allowing outright games of chance with a monetary payout? In what world is a Magic the Gathering blister more of a problem (for a consenting adult, anyway) than an online casino?

But also, by the larger point you're making it seems like you'd be fine with a government saying "porn is banned for everybody because reasons" but not with "porn is banned for kids", at least in a scenario where that comes with age verification.

To be clear, I agree that both of those are... not good. I just don't know that I can wrap my head around the logic of thinking the more extensive issue is more acceptable than the alternative. You could argue that the porn ban is an excuse to add mass surveillance, but at that point we're not talking about the porn ban, we're talking about the mass surveillance.

Oh, and for the record, there is plenty of will someone think of the children regarding loot boxes. Both on its own and bundled together with a blanket assessment that gambling is immoral and/or illegal. It's actually a fairly close match to the porn issue, where concerns about children are being wrapped around a more targeted hostility around the concept from both sides of the political spectrum.

I... don't know where you're from, but actual gambling is legal here for adults. Are you suggesting that people should be able to place bets on actual sports but not buy a random loot box in a game? That seems incredibly extreme.

Which still leaves a bunch of other stuff people have used kids to attack on all sides of multiple political aisles, but hey, if that's the one you want to caveat I'm happy to flag how weird the caveat is.

Yeah, I read about some of the tightening at the time and I'm not disputing that there are technical ways of... you know, making your country's Internet a mostly separate bubble for non-techie users.

The point is it's both hard and extremely invasive to get there. You can't just wish upon a star for VPNs to not be used for a particular application without going to those extremes. Especially if the thing you're trying to prevent is people watching Superman two weeks early or wanking to a mainstream porn page.

It's kind of unfortunate how much this has been encouraged by petty online fights. People were very excited when "will somebody think of the children" was applied to, say, some social media content or gaming loot boxes because the Internet did not like those things, so they were very happy to ignore the pre-existing parental control devices and request blanket bans. Then people remembered that a bunch of old, prudish people on both sides of the political aisle don't like porn and it was too late.

Man, people love the "they first came for" argument online and I should have guessed the first time it really pays off in the 21st century it'd include the absolute most depressing things possible instead.

Anyway, this is bad and I don't like it, but UK politics are almost as bad as US politics, so I'm happy to let both stew in their own cautionary tale juices.

I guess that works for VPN services offering servers outside the country. That's not what VPNs are, though, and you still can't ban the concept of VPNs having a connection outside the country. VPN software is available open source and all it takes for it to connect abroad is my phone with a VPN connection to my home computer being abroad.

I mean, Russia (and even China) still have people using VPNs all over the place. This (and a lot of the push for age verification and comms backdoors) reeks of barely understanding the desired result and entirely misunderstanding how the tech works.

How do you "ban VPNs"? That's not how software works, and VPNs are... you know, a key part of a bunch of online infrastructure. I get that they mean "ban them to bypass restrictions", but the entire point of a VPN is you can't tell from the outside what it's being used for. You may as well ban thinking about butterflies. You can write it down, but you can't enforce it.

He doesn't say he doesn't, so I assume he does.

The problem is the way he got banned also blocks him from his shared auth, which in turn blocks him from purchases and device functionality:

The Damage: I effectively have over $30,000 worth of previously-active “bricked" hardware. My iPhone, iPad, Watch, and Macs cannot sync, update, or function properly. I have lost access to thousands of dollars in purchased software and media. Apple representatives claim that only the “Media and Services” side of my account is blocked, but now my devices have signed me out of iMessage (and I can’t sign back in), and I can’t even sign out of the blocked iCloud account because… it’s barred from the sign-out API, as far as I can tell.

Seriously, it's like a one page blog. You could have read it in the time it took you to make me read it for you.

Agreed 100%. I think it's understandable to feel schadenfreude on someone this deeply embedded being bit by the arbitrary business practices of big corpo in a worst case scenario type of situation.

But the problem is the business practices, not the person being affected. The guy's job feeding Apples gargantuan content engine doesn't make this alright.

Because it was a 500 dollar transaction and the card they purchased was an apple-branded product in a major retailer.

It was a 500 dollar transaction because this guy is a pro developer in Apple's ecosystem and apparently uses a 6TB plan for both personal and professional storage.

The Trigger: The only recent activity on my account was a recent attempt to redeem a $500 Apple Gift Card to pay for my 6TB iCloud+ storage plan. The code failed. The vendor suggested that the card number was likely compromised and agreed to reissue it. Shortly after, my account was locked.
    An Apple Support representative suggested that this was the cause of the issue: indicating that something was likely untoward about this card.
    The card was purchased from a major brick-and-mortar retailer (Australians, think Woolworths scale; Americans, think Walmart scale), so if I cannot rely on the provenance of that, and have no recourse, what am I meant to do? We have even sent the receipt, indicating the card’s serial number and purchase location to Apple.

Much as I do think mixing pro and personal accounts is a mistake, as a person who has to pay several major corpos for subscription plans for professional software that include cloud storage, I admit I get it. Receiving spam about how full your free personal Google Drive is kinda sucks extra if you are already paying a bunch for an enterprise account with a bunch of storage on the side.