Those are all products.

It’s almost as if the roles/titles aren’t the determining factor.

Most of what's happening in the word can be boiled down to either someone craving power, or someone in power desperately struggling to hold on to it.

Unless you are listening through the same studio monitors in the same room or headphones as the mixing engineer, it will never be the same.

IMHO, people place too much importance on "accuracy". While accuracy might be objectively measured, it means nothing when it comes to individual taste.

There’s a whole field of research on this (look up Floyd Toole) - while any one individual can have skewed taste, on aggregate people prefer speakers that are as close to neutral as possible.

For an independent artist, exposure matters more than album sales as it leads to ticket sales.

For large labels, exposure is a solved problem and album sales are all that matters.

They are all trying to maximize revenue, they just have different ways of going about it.

At the scale these companies operate and the number of actual scammers they block because of their 0 - 100 policies, I can see how they got there. I bet all of us have had the luck (?) of out card being blocked because someone out there was able to get a hold of the credentials. Collateral damage like this, as devastating as it is to the individual, is probably a drop in the bucket for the company.

I'm not excusing this. What happened here shouldn't happen, and there should be quick resolutions and explanations available to the aggrieved parties.

It's not just corporate policy, it's regulatory requirements in the US.

You must block financial activity, and you must not communicate any details to the customer, upon reasonable suspicion of money laundering activity. There's a process and a prescribed timeline for getting things resolved. There is no penalty for a false positive, but there are large penalties for false negatives.

Having watched hundreds of these things happen, all of the details point squarely to an AML problem. For closed loop gift card programs, the merchant, program manager, issuing bank, and possibly the seller all get involved. It takes time.

This doesn't require shutting off a user's access to their data though -- just preventing financial activity. Apple might not have adequately fine-grained permissions around account suspension to support this, and obviously they should fix that!

AML and fraud are different, and the regulatory requirements you're talking about are only one requirement for banks to follow.. they have additional, internal policies of their own that may affect account and money access. If Apple isn't following a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR), then the actions are their own, and the policies are their own.

This is true, but potential money laundering is a UAR, and the issuing bank decides whether to turn that into a SAR (merchants do not file SARs, although at Apple's scale, the conversation between merchant and bank is continuous and both sides will have fraud and AML experts at every step).

The decision to create the SAR will depend on the outputs of the multi-party investigation, which is the thing that takes time and causes visible issues for consumers.

If the tool doesn't adhere to those standards, the resulting signature isn't legally compliant (at least, not in a way that satisfies corporate structures).

What does legally compliant even mean here? I can print a document, scribble on it with a pen, and scan it and that's legal, so how high can the digital bar be?

A great example is the DotCom bubble. Wiped out a lot of capital but it really did transform the world.

But also, a lot of the dot com companies that people invested in in 1999 went bust, meaning those specific investments went to zero even if the web as a whole was a huge success financially.

Sure...that's why it's important to diversify investments. For every Pets.com, hopefully you have a Google in your portfolio.

Or, you skip all that and just put it all in an S&P 500 fund.

I started working in 1997 and lived through the dot com bubble and collapse. My advice to people is to diversify away from your company stock. I knew a lot of people at Cisco that had stock options at $80 and it dropped to under $20.

Because of the way the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) worked at the time they bought the stock, did not sell, but owed taxes on the gain on the day of purchase. They had tax bills of over $1 million but even if they sold it all they couldn't pay the bill. This dragged on for years.

I heard of stories like that!

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-apr-13-mn-50476...

That lesson is part of why I dump my company's shares the first chance I get.

The person in the story is literally the person at Cisco I was talking about. I worked on 2 projects with him. Great engineer.

But you would not have had Google in you portfolio.

The bubble burst in 2000-2001, Google IPO was in 2004.

The S&P500 also did not do very well at the time.

That is the problem with bubbles.

Yeah, but unlike LLMs the Internet was an actual useful technology.

The original Bard's Tale was my first RPG and I've been hooked ever since.

All three get reported to iphones.

That’s not part of the Bluetooth spec to report battery power for three separate batteries on one device. Where would it be reported to?

Yes, that's my point.

If it’s not part of the BT spec - how is Apple going to report three battery levels in a way that’s compatible with non Apple devices?

Again, that's what I'm saying. We are in agreeance but you really seem to want to argue.

You said when I asked which should get reported “Whatever is reported to iPhones. It's not an excuse to block non Apple devices from reading battery level”

Exactly how is Apple going to send information to none Apple devices using the BT protocol in a method that they can understand?

Read the thread again. You lost the plot. Pay attention to the usernames.