Joseph Menn, Washington Post:

The U.S. Justice Department told Congress in November that there were no major disputes with the United Kingdom over how the two allies seek data from each other’s communication companies.

But at that time, officials knew British authorities were preparing a demand that Apple build a back door to its users’ encrypted data, according to people familiar with the process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal department matters.

There are only two reasons I can see for Biden officials to omit this from their report: first because it was not, in November, a current dispute but a potential future one; and, second, it understood it could not talk about it. Neither seems justifiable.

Tim Bradshaw, Financial Times:

Donald Trump has lashed out at the UK’s demand for Apple to grant secret access to its most secure cloud storage system, comparing the move to “something … that you hear about with China”.

[…]

Earlier this week, Tulsi Gabbard, US director of national intelligence, said any move to force Apple to build a back door into its systems would cause “grave concern” as an “egregious violation” of Americans’ privacy. Gabbard said she had ordered lawyers and intelligence officials to investigate the matter.

It is amazing to see this particularly despicable U.S. administration arguing for the correct position given its history. To be fair, Tulsi Gabbard is less of a surprise; though she now apparently supports U.S. surveillance programmes, she has a history of questioning privacy overreaches. But the first Trump administration was not at all friendly to end-to-end encryption. According to Menn, then at Reuters, the FBI tried to pressure Apple to kill its plans for end-to-end encryption in iCloud, a feature which would ultimately be launched – in 2022 – as Advanced Data Protection. In 2019, the U.S. was exploring whether it could ban end-to-end encryption entirely and, in 2020, was a co-signatory on a multilateral statement requesting a backdoor as policy.

Thankfully, none of the more extreme U.S. positions on end-to-end encryption has become law. And, while the U.S. is among many in opposing end-to-end encryption, there have been no reports of it compelling service providers to do what the U.K. government is expecting of Apple, though Menn reports the FBI has tried. That is not to say the U.S. would not issue a mandate, nor that we would find out about it. The PRISM program was a backdoor into tech company data maintained secretly for six years before its existence was revealed by Edward Snowden, while Yahoo built (maybe?) a way for it to search users’ email accounts after being compelled of the U.S. government. I do not think anyone should expect ideological or principled consistency from the Trump administration on this matter. There is a history of U.S. officials making these kinds of demands.

Maybe there is a third reason Biden officials did not want to notify Congress after all.

Janus Rose, 404 Media:

While streaming platforms flatten music-listening into a homogenous assortment of vibes, listening to an album you’ve downloaded on Bandcamp or receiving a mix from a friend feels more like forging a connection with artists and people. As a musician, I’d much rather have people listen to my music this way. Having people download your music for free on Soulseek is still considered a badge of honor in my producer/dj circles.

I don’t expect everyone to read this and immediately go back to hoarding mp3s, nor do I think many people will abandon things like Spotify and Amazon Kindle completely. It’s not like I’m some model citizen either: I share a YouTube Premium account because the ads make me want to die, and I will admit having a weakness for the Criterion Channel. But the packrat lifestyle has shown me that other ways are possible, and that at the end of the day, the only things we can trust to always be there are the things we can hold in our hands and copy without restriction.

Yes — a thousand times, yes. These are all effective ways of embracing art. One can stream and buy music, just as one can see movies in theatres and on a phone while sitting on a train. I am not saying the latter is as enjoyable, but I do not think the people involved in making “Twisters” will very much mind.

But I think you should have local copies of the stuff you like. None of these third-party services promise availability. In fact, their legal terms say they are provided on an “as-is” basis, and explicitly deny a warranty of “satisfactory quality” or any “obligation to provide specific content”. The service providers will try, of course, but they cannot make guarantees. Your local, backed-up music library, though? That will almost certainly work.

Harry Bennett, It’s Nice That:

Inclusive Sans is a new typeface from Olivia King that puts accessibility at the forefront. It’s arisen from the type designer’s research into typographic accessibility and readability – from highly regarded traditional guides and papers to more modern approaches to letterform legibility. “A few years ago, I was working on branding projects in the disability and government sectors, where accessibility was always a big focus,” Olivia tells It’s Nice That. Olivia wanted to take things a step further, however, and she and her colleague, Jo Roca, began to explore typographic accessibility at the character level rather than through the typeface as a whole.

Inclusive Sans is a free download through Google Fonts. Via a Brand New case study, I also learned about Atkinson Hyperlegible from the Braille Institute of America. Both are not only reflecting more inclusive principles, they are also quite nice examples of type design.

Luke Goldstein, the Lever:

If you’re in one of the 9 million organizations that use Google Workspace, your company likely just received notice that it’ll have to fork over a lot more cash to use its ubiquitous office applications.The monthly price for business plans is jumping 16 percent, from $14.40 to $16.80. If all 3 billion Google Workspace users paid that standard increase, that would equal an additional $7.2 billion in monthly revenue for the company. At the same time, Google’s cloud division, which houses Workspace, slashed its workforce this week, though the exact number of staff layoffs is unknown.

This is smaller bump than the one recently announced for Microsoft 365. Google most recently hiked prices this time last year. The margins say keep squeezing.

Adam Engst, riffing for TidBits on my confused reaction to recent breakthroughs from Google and Microsoft:

Perhaps it was inevitable. Companies like Microsoft and Google invest billions of dollars in fundamental research (which is good!), but their marketing departments (whom I suspect don’t understand quantum computing either) can’t help but search for user benefits for their announcements. The result is cognitive dissonance — it’s hard to imagine these companies’ quantum products solving the world’s ills when Google users complain about the quality of search results and Microsoft users frequently swear at Teams and OneDrive. Meanwhile, university labs that make significant strides in quantum computing rarely make it into mainstream tech news.

I think the marketing of these inventions is most of what tripped me up. If you divorce the consumer-type sales pitches from Google, Microsoft, and now Amazon from the likely uses for these computers, it seems to make more sense. Think of them in the realm of a supercomputer or, as Engst writes, the “mainframes of the future”. If they work — if — the distance between them and the effects you and I may feel is going to be vast.

Want to experience twice as fast load times in Safari on your iPhone, iPad and Mac?

Then download Magic Lasso Adblock — the ad blocker designed for you.

Magic Lasso Adblock: browse 2.0x faster

As an efficient, high performance, and native Safari ad blocker, Magic Lasso blocks all intrusive ads, trackers, and annoyances – delivering a faster, cleaner, and more secure web browsing experience.

By cutting down on ads and trackers, common news websites load 2× faster and browsing uses less data while saving energy and battery life.

Rely on Magic Lasso Adblock to:

  • Improve your privacy and security by removing ad trackers

  • Block all YouTube ads, including pre-roll video ads

  • Block annoying cookie notices and privacy prompts

  • Double battery life during heavy web browsing

  • Lower data usage when on the go

With over 5,000 five star reviews; it’s simply the best ad blocker for your iPhone, iPad. and Mac.

And unlike some other ad blockers, Magic Lasso Adblock respects your privacy, doesn’t accept payment from advertisers, and is 100% supported by its community of users.

So, join over 350,000 users and download Magic Lasso Adblock today.

Tim Bray:

Also, Safari is technically competent. It’s fast enough, and (unlike even a very few years ago) compatible with wherever I go. The number of Chome-only sites, thank goodness, seems to be declining rapidly.

So, a tip o’ the hat to the Safari team, they’re mostly giving me what I need. But there are irritants.

I am sure there are people who will gripe with Bray’s description of Safari as “technically competent” because of all the APIs it does not support. I will not because I cannot remember the last time I needed to open a page in a Chromium-based browser for compatibility reasons.

I do share Bray’s frustrations with Safari’s odd tab behaviour, though. There are a few peculiar circumstances in which links will open in a new window instead of a tab, and when pressing ⌘–W will close a window instead of a single tab. The first of these things happens if you have a dialog box open or if you are using Tab Groups. I am not sure about the second but it has happened to me.

Bray:

I humbly suggest … that Safari do these things:

[…]

Don’t just exit on ⌘-Q. Chrome gets this right, offering an option where I have to hold that key combo down for a second or two.

I disagree. I think Chrome’s nonstandard behaviour is confusing and unexpected. But I do think Safari should offer users a chance to reconsider instead of immediately quitting, especially since the Q and W keys are next to each other. A user’s open tabs are kind of like an unsaved document, except there is no guarantee those same links will work upon relaunch. Sometimes a paywall will be triggered, or a website could be down. I have therefore mapped “Quit” in Safari to ⌘–⌥–Q.

But, on the subject of Tab Groups, I find myself accidentally switching to them more often than I would like. This is because rotating between them is mapped to ⌘–⌥–[ and ⌘–⌥–]. Notice I did not write “by default”, and that is because there is no way to change this shortcut key combination. I have tried; according to Safari, the shortcuts for “Go to Previous Tab Group” and “Go to Next Tab Group” are the ones I have set. Yet, for some reason, Safari still responds to the shortcut keys Apple has apparently hardcoded.

Michael Tsai, commenting in relation to the “tyranny of apps” article:

I think Apple News would have a better user experience with a Web site and an RSS feed than as an app.

I agree, but I think it is a worse situation than that suggests. Apple News is not only a mediocre app experience, but its existence also causes regressions on the open web.

Stories in Apple News have a permalink, like anything else on the web. However, unlike just about any link you have seen from a mainstream publication for the past, say, twenty years, these links are inscrutable. Instead of being in a format containing the source of an article and its title, all Apple News permalinks are something like https://apple.news/Ayls8UZCzQnWfFNRugL3tPA.

That is not only gross, it is also unhelpful. Sometimes, but not always, links like these display a page containing nothing but the following:

Open this story in Apple News.

For the best reading experience, open this story on a device with Apple News. It may also be available on the publisher’s website.

Learn more about Apple News

There is no link to the article — certainly not on the publisher’s website, but also not even on Apple News. In MacOS browsers, I am prompted to open Apple News to view the article; if I decline, I have no next steps.

There is scant indication of what article this is. The <title> element of the page shows the article’s headline, but the publisher is not visible. (It is, however, contained in the page’s markup, along with a description of the article.) This is true no matter which user agent I use. I tried it with a couple of automated webpage testing tools and got the exact same page.

This article is, of course, also available on the web. I chose it essentially by chance from plentiful options. Apple could make next steps visible on this page, but it does not, and never has since Apple News launched ten years ago this September.

Update: As Bill Bennett reminds me, these links are even worse in regions without Apple News availability.

Marc Fisher, in the Washington Post in December:

Too often now, in matters meaningful and meaningless, the good stuff is reserved for people who have smartphones or other digital tools. From parking garages to airplane movie offerings, it pays to be digitally equipped. More to the point, it hurts to be in the technological slow lane.

Rupert Jones, the Guardian:

“It’s the tyranny of the apps,” says Ron Delnevo, the chair of the campaign committee at lobby group the Payment Choice Alliance. “In this country we’re being treated like sheep,” he says. “We’re always being told there’s no alternative.” But when a new smartphone can set you back hundreds of pounds, it is “an expensive passport to participate”, Delnevo says.

According to the latest data from the telecoms regulator Ofcom, 8% of people aged 16 or over do not have a smartphone, which for the UK translates into just under 4.5 million people. Among those aged 75-plus, the proportion is said to be 28%. Add in all those who don’t or can’t use apps and the total number of people affected is a lot bigger.

Yet another example of how being poor can cost more. If you do not have enough money for a smartphone, you might be locked out of discounts for basic goods. My local supermarket is currently offering a dollar off eggs if I use my personalized coupon — but it is only available in the app.

Even for those of us with smartphones — a majority of people in Canada in all under-75 age groups, for example — we might not want to install software to get grocery coupons or park their car. These apps are often clunky experience, and seem to usually be a website in an app wrapper. Web apps are not treated as mainstream citizens on iOS, in particular, so these bad apps are all we get. Loyalty programs have long been mechanisms for collecting more data about customers, though, so it is little surprise they are going smartphone-first or –only.

Apple today announced a series of child safety enhancements in the form of a PDF document which, so far as I can tell, is not listed anywhere on its website. The company is developing a habit of sending PDF links directly to media outlets to circulate. Among the forthcoming features is an API to confirm a user’s age range.

Sarah Perez, TechCrunch:

Apple historically has pushed for third-party app developers to verify kids’ ages, while large tech companies like Meta have lobbied that app store operators should handle age verification as they have this information about their users already.

The iPhone maker’s new solution is something of a compromise. It puts Apple in the position of collecting kids’ ages via parental input but still puts the onus on the third-party developer to extract and use this information to craft age-appropriate experiences in their own apps.

A predictable and, I think, correct outcome. I was wrong about it being a device-level feature, but it makes complete sense for age verification to be part of a child’s Apple Account information instead of collected individually by third-party apps. On the fifth page of the PDF, Apple explains why it has been reluctant to be a gatekeeper in this instance:

Requiring age verification at the app marketplace level is not data minimization. While only a fraction of apps on the App Store may require age verification, all users would have to hand over their sensitive personally identifying information to us — regardless of whether they actually want to use one of these limited set of apps. That means giving us data like a driver’s license, passport, or national identification number (such as a Social Security number), even if we don’t need it. And because many kids in the U.S. don’t have government-issued IDs, parents in the U.S. will have to provide even more sensitive documentation just to allow their child to access apps meant for children. That’s not in the interest of user safety or privacy.

This is a direct response to a proposed U.S. law that would require Apple — and Google — to verify ages at the App Store level; it says its solution is an effective alternative. It may well be, but I do not buy this line of argument. It could, for example, wait to verify a user’s age until they attempt to download an app where it would be needed. Also, while Apple’s own data collection would be minimized by hypothetically offloading that responsibility onto third-parties, it would increase the number of copies of this sensitive information floating around. Put it this way: if you had the choice of verifying your age with Apple one time, or needed to send that documentation individually to Bluesky, Meta, X, and other third-party developers, which would you choose? I think even the most reticent iPhone user would pick a one-time Apple validation.

Riley Testut is optimistic this API will be available in third-party app marketplaces. I hope that is the case.

Ina Fried, Axios:

Amazon on Wednesday showed off Alexa+, a generative AI version of its digital voice assistant that draws on a variety of models and works with many of the company’s older Echo devices.

[…]

Alexa+ will work with a number of service partners, including GrubHub, OpenTable, Ticketmaster, Yelp, Thumbtack, Vagaro, Fodor’s, TripAdvisor, Uber, Spotify, Apple Music, Pandora, Netflix, Disney+, Hulu and Max.

These voice-controlled assistants seem like a natural fit for large language models and, if Amazon’s ad is anything to go by, this looks impressive. Something I think about a lot is an accessibility spectrum I first saw from Microsoft. I am not someone with a permanent physical disability, for example, but I cook often and do not want to touch my phone. Voice controls are a situational boon.

But there is no part of me that would ever want Alexa or any other voice-controlled assistant buying tickets to a show, or booking a vacation rental, or even buying groceries. Not a single cell in me trusts it with transactions.

Panos Panay, of Amazon:

Today, we’re excited to introduce Alexa+, our next-generation assistant powered by generative AI. Alexa+ is more conversational, smarter, personalized — and she helps you get things done. She keeps you entertained, helps you learn, keeps you organized, summarizes complex topics, and can converse about virtually anything. Alexa+ can manage and protect your home, make reservations, and help you track, discover, and enjoy new artists. She can also help you search, find or buy virtually any item online, and make useful suggestions based on your interests. Alexa+ does all this and more — all you have to do is ask.

It is still so damn weird that Amazon refers to Alexa as “she”.

Emily Elena Dugdale and Hanisha Harjani, the Markup (please note this story contains several descriptions of sexual assault):

“It is shocking that for years after receiving reports of sexual assault, Hinge continued to allow Stephen Matthews access to its platforms and actively facilitated his abuse,” said Laura Wolf, the attorney representing the woman whose police report led to the arrest. Following best practices for reporting on sexual assault, the Dating Apps Reporting Project is honoring survivors’ requests for anonymity. Matthews’ attorney, Douglas Cohen, declined to comment. A letter that The Dating Apps Reporting Project sent directly to Matthews in jail went unanswered.

Match Group’s reach is so massive — its mission is “to spark meaningful connections for every single person worldwide” — that people are more likely to meet through its apps than out at the bars, at church, or through friends.

This is, in part, a problem of platform moderation at scale — but the Match Group choosing to scale beyond the capabilities of what it is willing to manually moderate is a self-created problem.

Most of the dating apps you can name are likely part of the Match Group, which includes Hinge, OkCupid, Plenty of Fish, Tinder, and Match itself. The sad irony of the breadth of Match’s offerings is that it has enormous power when it is presented with evidence of abuse. If you start poking around the web for guides to evade these bans, you will find plenty of people who swear up and down they were kicked off one or more Match Group products for no good reason. I am sure some of them are lying — perhaps most. Some are probably telling the truth, though, because moderation is hard. Again, it is the platform’s choice to scale.

In the context of dating apps, it is best to err on the side of being a little ban-happy. And, if there is a pattern of abuse — as there was in the case profiled in this article — I cannot think of a good reason why someone would not be reported to authorities.

Jeff Bezos published an email he sent to Washington Post staff on, of all places, X, though it was covered by the Post itself without a byline:

I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.

We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.

There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.

Isaac Schorr, Mediaite:

Bezos’s exercise of greater control over the Post’s journalism in recent months has raised eyebrows. Last fall, a number of prominent Post writers and alumni criticized Bezos for preventing the paper’s editorial board from endorsing Kamala Harris for president, writing in an op-ed that “Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” and “create a perception of bias.

An endorsement might be sen as biased, but what about a million-dollar donation plus another million in-kind? That is just business.

And how about the internet taking the place of a “broad-based opinion section”?

Hadas Gold and Joe Pompeo, Politico, in 2017, after the New York Times announced it would no longer have a public editor:

That’s the direction the Times is going in — letting the public serve as the public editor, a position created at the Times in the wake of the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal in 2003.

“[T]oday, our followers on social media and our readers across the Internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be. Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office,” Sulzberger said in the memo. […]

The way this has played out since is by allowing the Times’ publisher to frame criticism originating on social media as largely unserious, and to avoid engaging with it. The Post would like to take a similar position with its opinion section: the pieces it publishes are nominally serious works by serious commentators, and they should only concern themselves with serious topics like defending capitalism and personal freedoms. If you want to have a conflicting opinion or would like to write about something else, start a blog, dummy.

Bezos:

I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.

I know what you are thinking: finally, a media outlet dedicated to defending free markets. Sure, there are three cable television channels in the United States broadcasting nothing but business news, plus another two — Cheddar and Schwab Network — primarily or exclusively online. And, yes, the second most popular newspaper in the United States — ahead of the Post — is named after its business hub. Sure, the Post itself publishes a daily business section. Explaining and defending the annals of capitalism is a primary function of the mainstream press. But what if you finish all of that output and remain hungry for more? Bezos has got your back.

Coverage of news and opinion about “personal liberties”, in the broadest but still reasonable definition, is arguably more saturated, encompassing everything from technological privacy to LGBTQ rights, from actual speech to fake money-as-speech. “Underserved”? Hardly. Advocating for the criticism and shaming of public figures for actions hostile to personal liberties is just as much a support of those freedoms as is defending those actions. If you are looking for people to scold progressive activism while minimizing people with real power, the Atlantic is chockablock full of those takes. I wonder which way the Post will go.

Conspirador Norteño”:

The latest craze in Facebook generative AI spam: cooking pages with tons of vaguely surreal artificially generated images of food.

I am not sure about “latest”, but this genre of A.I. slop seems to be increasing in volume to the extent even I have noticed on the open web. I find it repulsive for three reasons: first, developing recipes is difficult and, like many of the other creative practices mimicked by A.I., it deserves more credit than it gets; second, the results may be dangerous and nobody is incentivized to provide quality control; and, third, it is a depressing mimic of a fundamentally human practice.

Charlotte Engrav, reporting for NPR in September:

For years, chefs on YouTube and TikTok have staged cook-offs between “real” and AI recipes — where the “real” chefs often prevail. In 2022, Tasty compared a chocolate cake recipe generated by GPT-3 with one developed by a professional food writer. While the AI recipe baked up fine, the food writer’s recipe won in a blind taste test. The tasters preferred the food writer’s cake because it had a more nuanced, not-too-sweet flavor profile and a denser, moister crumb compared to the AI cake, which was sweeter and drier.

AI recipes can be dangerous too. Last year, Forbes reported that one AI recipe generator produced a recipe for “aromatic water mix” when a Twitter user prompted it to make a recipe with water, bleach and ammonia. The recipe actually produced deadly chlorine gas.

This article is not all eye-popping A.I. errors and trendy YouTube formats. It also contains a nuanced discussion about the ways different cooks and recipe developers are using A.I. services.

Katie Notopoulos, Business Insider:

I looked into a few Facebook pages that are posting what appear to be AI-generated recipes with AI-generated images. (How’d I come to suspect? The images had telltale signs of AI, like disappearing tines on a fork or weirdly shaped fingers or distorted edges.)

What I found most surprising: People are actually cooking these AI-generated recipes. Sometimes they’re even enjoying the results.

So I had to get in on the kitchen action myself. I made one of the salmon dishes — let’s call it “SalmonGPT.”

Ali Domrongchai, Defector:

However real the food and recipes might incidentally be comes second to the mechanics of getting clicks, likes, and shares. Creators aren’t taking a moment to read or check any of this work, the way anyone would when testing out a recipe. The goal is simple: mass-generating content to populate sham blogs as fast as possible. These AI-generated food pages aren’t just silly experiments, they’re businesses — like the rest of food media. By generating high-click content and using algorithms to mimic the viral successes of real food blogs, the accounts accumulate display-ad revenue and further clutter search results with garbage. It’s a machine designed solely to grab attention and profit; food was never the point.

This article is my primary link for a reason: if you read nothing else in full from this collection, you should at least read this one.

I have so far been underwhelmed by the small amount of experimentation I have done with ChatGPT. I am an enthusiastic home cook and have tried to get it to help me make menus for a week’s worth of meals, and for individual dinner parties. It loves suggesting skewers, for some reason, and out-of-season produce even when I specify otherwise. I can see how it may be plausible for basic recipes being more reliably generated, as there are many types of cooking based around a set of similar techniques but with individual ingredient substitutions.

I keep stumbling across recipes in the wild clearly generated by robots. Thanks to Google’s power over the web, they follow the same format as any other recipe blog, complete with a rambling introduction and history of every ingredient in the dish. Remember: traffic does not originate solely from Facebook, and demonstrating topical “expertise” is essential for search optimization purposes. The images are incredibly shiny and impossible to miss on Pinterest. That is how I found three A.I. recipe websites within just a few minutes, two of which — That Oven Feelin’ and Easy Family Recipes — have nearly a million followers each on Facebook. The latter is part of a network of similar sites that, if their hosting information is anything to go by, are operated by the same people. All of these websites have a lot of ads.

If the way you find recipes is by searching the web or Pinterest, I would bet you have stumbled across a generated recipe at least once in the past couple of years.

Craig Silverman, ProPublica:

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg also said in January that the company was removing or dialing back automated systems that reduce the spread of false information. At the same time, Meta is revamping a program that has paid bonuses to creators for content based on views and engagement, potentially pouring accelerant on the kind of false posts it once policed. The new Facebook Content Monetization program is currently invite-only, but Meta plans to make it widely available this year.

The upshot: a likely resurgence of incendiary false stories on Facebook, some of them funded by Meta, according to former professional Facebook hoaxsters and a former Meta data scientist who worked on trust and safety.

This is going to incentivize more slop of all kinds thanks in part to the business models of Google and Meta. Both companies have ways of rewarding people for being popular — Google Ads and Meta’s “Content Monetization” program. Even if you do not use Facebook, the open web you use is being flooded with slop like this. It offers no advantage over real recipe blogs — the exhausting narratives are still there — and it comes with a whiff of fraud.

New app from John Siracusa:

Hyperspace searches for files with identical contents within one or more folders. If it finds any, it can then reclaim the disk space taken by all but one of the identical files — without removing any of the files!

You can learn more about how this is done, if you’re interested, but the short version is that Hyperspace uses a standard feature of the macOS file system: space-saving clones. The Finder does the same thing when you duplicate a file.

The screenshots on the Mac App Store listing might look like one of those “download more RAM” scams — “reclaim disk space… without removing files!” — but this is not fake. Stephen Hackett reclaimed “nearly a gigabyte”; John Voorhees, of MacStories, freed up 4.4 GB.

My situation is much less dramatic. Hyperspace requires MacOS 15, which means I cannot run it on my iMac containing a local copy of my music library, photos, and fifteen years of migrated data. On my MacBook Pro, used for far less strenuous tasks, the potential savings are around 57 MB. Luckily, Siracusa’s business model accounts for this — you can scan for free but you need to pay to de-duplicate data.

Leah Nylen, Bloomberg:

President Donald Trump’s Federal Trade Commission will “vigorously” sue to block illegal mergers, the agency’s new chairman said Monday, highlighting support for the repeated deal challenges during the Biden era.

“We are going to enforce these laws vigorously and aggressively,” FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said in his first public appearance since becoming the agency’s leader last month. If the commission believes that a merger violates the law “you’re going to see us in court and if we think it doesn’t, we’re going to get out of the way.”

The FTC under the first Trump administration launched investigations into tech company acquisitions and sued Facebook. The former decision was made unanimously. The latter was a 3–2 vote, with the Republican chair joining the two Democratic commissioners in favour; the remaining two Republican commissioners voted against it. This suit was dismissed by a judge in 2021, shortly after Lina Khan took over the FTC. Under her watch, the FTC refiled, and will result in Meta facing trial this spring.

I am glad to see the FTC taking a more aggressive posture in antitrust. I hope it is more competent this time. Ferguson’s motivations are a mixed bag, but it makes sense to investigate the activities of some of the most powerful companies in the world.

Apple in 2017:

Apple has committed to investing at least $1 billion with US-based companies as part of the [Advanced Manufacturing Fund], which is designed to foster innovative production and highly skilled jobs that will help lay the foundation for a new era of technology-driven manufacturing in the US.

This note was part of a press release announcing a large investment in Corning from this fund, and it began something of a tradition. While Apple has occasionally issued press announcements for similar investments at other times of the year, this one — from the early days of the first Trump administration — was the first in a two-part debut of what has become a tradition.

Apple in 2018 issued what is effectively the second part:

Combining new investments and Apple’s current pace of spending with domestic suppliers and manufacturers — an estimated $55 billion for 2018 — Apple’s direct contribution to the US economy will be more than $350 billion over the next five years, not including Apple’s ongoing tax payments, the tax revenues generated from employees’ wages and the sale of Apple products.

Planned capital expenditures in the US, investments in American manufacturing over five years and a record tax payment upon repatriation of overseas profits will account for approximately $75 billion of Apple’s direct contribution.

This one was issued a few months after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act took effect, containing tax repatriation policies for which Apple successfully lobbied.

Apple in April 2021, not long after the inauguration of Joe Biden:

Apple today announced an acceleration of its US investments, with plans to make new contributions of more than $430 billion and add 20,000 new jobs across the country over the next five years. Over the past three years, Apple’s contributions in the US have significantly outpaced the company’s original five-year goal of $350 billion set in 2018. Apple is now raising its level of commitment by 20 percent over the next five years, supporting American innovation and driving economic benefits in every state. This includes tens of billions of dollars for next-generation silicon development and 5G innovation across nine US states.

Apple today:

Apple today announced its largest-ever spend commitment, with plans to spend and invest more than $500 billion in the U.S. over the next four years. This new pledge builds on Apple’s long history of investing in American innovation and advanced high-skilled manufacturing, and will support a wide range of initiatives that focus on artificial intelligence, silicon engineering, and skills development for students and workers across the country.

These press releases are not for the wider public; they are not even directly for investors. They are for politicians and, in particular, whomever is the U.S. president. Apple issued nothing like these releases in 2019 or 2020, and not again from 2022–2024. It is plausible all of these announced investments would have happened regardless of who was president. The press releases are post-election reminders that Apple is a large business with the power to shape swathes of the U.S. and world economy, and they would prefer if their products avoid regulations and tariffs.

It would be useful if somebody were keeping tracking of all the company’s promises, though.

Do you want to block all YouTube ads in Safari on your iPhone, iPad and Mac?

Then download Magic Lasso Adblock – the ad blocker designed for you.

Magic Lasso Adblock - best in class YouTube ad blocking

As an efficient, high performance, and native Safari ad blocker, Magic Lasso blocks all intrusive ads, trackers, and annoyances – delivering a faster, cleaner, and more secure web browsing experience.

Magic Lasso Adblock is easy to setup, doubles the speed at which Safari loads, and also blocks all YouTube ads; including all:

  • video ads

  • pop up banner ads

  • search ads

  • plus many more

With over 5,000 five star reviews; it’s simply the best ad blocker for your iPhone, iPad, and Mac.

And unlike some other ad blockers, Magic Lasso Adblock respects your privacy, doesn’t accept payment from advertisers, and is 100% supported by its community of users.

So, join over 350,000 users and download Magic Lasso Adblock today.

Remember when new technology felt stagnant? All the stuff we use — laptops, smartphones, watches, headphones — coalesced around a similar design language. Everything became iterative or, in more euphemistic terms, mature. Attempts to find a new thing to excite people mostly failed. Remember how everything would change with 5G? How about NFTs? How is your metaverse house? The world’s most powerful hype machine could not make any of these things stick.

This is not necessarily a problem in the scope of the world. There should be a point at which any technology settles into a recognizable form and function. These products are, ideally, utilitarian — they enable us to do other stuff.

But here we are in 2025 with breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and, apparently, quantum computing and physics itself. The former is something I have written about at length already because it has become adopted so quickly and so comprehensively — whether we like it or not — that it is impossible to ignore. But the news in quantum computers is different because it is much, much harder for me to grasp. I feel like I should be fascinated, and I suppose I am, but mainly because I find it all so confusing.

This is not an explainer-type article. This is me working things out for myself. Join me. I will not get far.

Hartmut Neven, of Google, in December:

Today I’m delighted to announce Willow, our latest quantum chip. Willow has state-of-the-art performance across a number of metrics, enabling two major achievements.

  • The first is that Willow can reduce errors exponentially as we scale up using more qubits. This cracks a key challenge in quantum error correction that the field has pursued for almost 30 years.

  • Second, Willow performed a standard benchmark computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 10 septillion (that is, 1025) years — a number that vastly exceeds the age of the Universe.

Catherine Bolgar, Microsoft:

Microsoft today introduced Majorana 1, the world’s first quantum chip powered by a new Topological Core architecture that it expects will realize quantum computers capable of solving meaningful, industrial-scale problems in years, not decades.

It leverages the world’s first topoconductor, a breakthrough type of material which can observe and control Majorana particles to produce more reliable and scalable qubits, which are the building blocks for quantum computers.

Microsoft says it created a new state of matter and observed a particular kind of particle, both for the first time. In a twelve-minute video, the company defines this new era — called the “quantum age” — as a literal successor to the Stone Age and the Bronze Age. Jeez.

There is hype, and then there is hype. This is the latter. Even if it is backed by facts — I have no reason to suspect Microsoft is lying in large part because, to reiterate, I do not know anything about this — and even if Microsoft deserves this much attention, it is a lot. Maybe I have become jaded by one too many ostensibly world-changing product launches.

There is good reason to believe the excitement shown by Google and Microsoft is not pure hyperbole. The problem is neither company is effective at explaining why. As of writing the first sentence of this piece, my knowledge of quantum computers was only that they can be much, much, much faster than any computer today, thanks to the unique properties of quantum mechanics and, specifically, quantum bits. That is basically all. But what does a wildly fast computer enable in the real world? My brain can only grasp the consumer-level stuff I use, so I am reminded of something I wrote when the first Mac Studio was announced a few years ago: what utility does speed have?

I am clearly thinking in terms far too small. Domenico Vicinanza wrote a good piece for the Conversation earlier this year:

Imagine being able to explore every possible solution to a problem all at once, instead of once at a time. It would allow you to navigate your way through a maze by simultaneously trying all possible paths at the same time to find the right one. Quantum computers are therefore incredibly fast at finding optimal solutions, such as identifying the shortest path, the quickest way.

This explanation helped me — not a lot, but a little bit. What I remain confused by are the examples in the announcements from Google and Microsoft. Why quantum computing could help “discover new medicines” or “lead to self-healing materials” seems like it should be obvious to anyone reading, but I do not get it.

I am suspicious in part because technology companies routinely draw links between some new buzzy thing they are selling and globally significant effects: alleviating hunger, reducing waste, fixing our climate crisis, developing alternative energy sources, and — most of all — revolutionizing medical care. Search the web for (hyped technology) cancer and you can find this kind of breathless revolutionary language drawing a clear line between cancer care and 5G, 6G, blockchain, DAOs, the metaverse, NFTs, and Web3 as a whole. This likely speaks as much about insidious industries that take advantage of legitimate qualms with the medical system and fears of cancer, but it is nevertheless a pattern with these new technologies.

I am not even saying these promises are always wrong. Technological advancement has surely led to improving cancer care, among other kinds of medical treatments.

I have no big goal for this post — no grand theme or message. I am curious about the promises of quantum computers for the same reason I am curious about all kinds of inventions. I hope they work in the way Google, Microsoft, and other inventors in this space seem to believe. It would be great if some of the world’s neglected diseases can be cured and we could find ways to fix our climate.

But — and this is a true story — I read through Microsoft’s various announcement pieces and watched that video while I was waiting on OneDrive to work properly. I struggle to understand how the same company that makes a bad file syncing utility is also creating new states of matter. My brain is fully cooked.

Priced originally at $65, it’s currently on sale for $39 (plus shipping) — no coupon is required.

Several years ago, I came across the word flong, and my life was changed. It led me to pose the question: Before photographic reproduction, how did newspaper comics syndicates in the era of metal relief printing send out cartoons to the hundreds or thousands of papers that printed a strip every day?

Peanuts flong

Finding the answer was a wonderful journey that led to my book How Comics Were Made. The book traces comics history from the 1890s to the present day and all the Rube Goldberg systems that allowed a cartoonist to draw a line and have it appear on newsprint—and now on a display. It’s a visual history of mostly forgotten printing history, the recovery of fascinating stories (such as why Garry Trudeau had to pull a week of Doonesbury strips in 1973 at the last minute), and an oral history by cartoonists who started their careers from the 1960s to the 2000s.

(And what is flong? A printing mold material made in sheet form from a wood pulp composite. Under great pressure, flong was pushed onto a raised metal plate. The result was sent to newspapers who poured hot lead in to make a reproduction of the original—a kind of metal photocopying.)