This is not an easy fix. Charge backs will lead to life-time permanent bans. Which means you're now forced to buy an iPhone in order to pass store attestation for essential applications like banking apps, government ID, age verification, etc.

Assuming the chargeback is made in good faith, why do the laws allowing for chargebacks in the first place permit this?

That's irrelevant, a blocked account justified or not should not prevent you from canceling your subscription. It should in fact automatically cancel any subscription upon account suspension.

My experience with actually trying this is that current LLMs benefit greatly from having a framework to build on.

More code in the context window doesn't just increase the cost, it also degrades the overall performance of the LLM. It will start making more mistakes, cause more bugs, add more unnecessary abstractions, and write less efficient code overall.

You'll end up having to spend a significant amount of time guiding the AI to write a good framework to build on top of, and at that point you would have been better off picking an existing framework that was included in the training set.

Maybe future LLMs will do better here, but I wouldn't recommend doing this for anything larger than a landing page with current models.

Yes. Intent and patterns will be much clearer for future sessions. If you have a WORN situation (write once read never (modify never, including by the AI)) perhaps you can skip layering and just big ball of mud your system. I doubt many people want that.

You wouldn't even have to be a high profile target like a sanctioned judge. Simply getting your account banned by some automated process that marked you as "suspicious" will basically render you excluded from society.

It is absolutely insane to put this amount of power in 2 foreign companies that will be able to destroy your life with zero reason, oversight, or due process.

This is not a hypothetical problem and you don't need to be deliberately targeted. It actually happens to normal people. And if it does you have absolutely zero recourse.

Source: I have a banned Google account (it's over 20 years old at this point). I know the password, but Google doesn't let me log into it. Every few years I try to unsuccessfully recover it.

If you have a Google account and having it banned would be a problem for you here's my advice: migrate. Right now. You never know when one of their bots will deem you a persona non grata.

Can't you just create a new account?

You can, but you lose access to anything that was associated with your old account.

Another fun thing Google did is to automatically (without my consent) add a required second-factor authentication to my current Google account. I have this old, e-waste tier phone that I use mostly only as a glorified alarm clock, and at one point I used it to log into my current Google account.

Imagine my surprise when I tried to log in to my Google account from somewhere else, and it asked me for an authentication code from this phone. Again, I have never explicitly set it up as such - Google did this automatically! So if I were to lose this phone I'd be screwed yet again, with yet another inaccessible Google account that I will have no way of recovering.

At this point I don't depend on any Big Tech services; my Google account has nothing of value associated with it (only my YouTube subscription list, which is easy enough to backup and restore), and I pay for my own email on my own domain, etc. So if I get screwed over yet again by a big, soulless corporation that just sees me as a number on their bottom-line, well, I just won't care.

You better hope that whatever is-this-the-same-user heuristics they have on their side never find out for the duration of your entire life.

In his case, I'm pretty sure 20 y/o data is pretty useless nowadays in terms of fingerprinting and usage heuristics.

> It takes five minutes to explain how an idea could open up a new market segment. It takes two seconds to say "that sounds risky." But in a meeting, the two feel equivalent.

In what world do these sound equivalent? Simply saying that something “sounds risky” is not serious criticism and wouldn’t hold any weight at any place I’ve ever worked at. You would have to actually explain why it sounds risky and point to something tangible.

> What type of "experience" are you expecting to have anyway?

Being told upfront what is required to complete the process so you don't have to start over again multiple times?

An iPhone without an Apple account is about as useful as brick because you can't load your own software onto it without the store.

You can if you have the source code, but I think that requires at least signing with a free account.

> cover most common use-cases.

It absolutely does not.

Most common use cases (bar social media): - Navigating - Emailing - Texting - Browsing internet

All this is available without an account.

Most common use cases are social media, messaging (WhatsApp, Messanger, Telegram, no one is using SMS anymore), ID apps, payment and banking apps.

You could skip social media, but without the others you would basically have to carry around a second phone or be severely handicapped just trying to live a normal life.

Beside all of that, the idea that a $1000 iPhone is usable without an account because you can SMS and check emails is laughable disingenuous.

You would need to lug the device with you everywhere because BankID is used for all sort of things in Sweden. I couldn't even use a vending machine here without the BankID app.

Why do you need MFA to use a vending machine? I thought the US was off its collective rocker but WTF is going on in Sweden?

WebViews aren't written or rendered with interpreted languages either. It is also usually not Javascript that makes browser based apps so heavy. It is almost always the whole browser stack that is making them large and memory hungry, which is mostly written in C++.

You can also hook a WebView up directly to a low-level language and skip Javascript entirely, so does that mean Rust + WebView = Native?