Texas would need to train its people. And the people would need to be as hungry as the Chinese were, and are to a certain extent. You should read the book the OT is talking about, it shows how the U.S. didn’t stand a chance in manufacturing, even going back to the 80s. Literally just not getting back to potential clients for two weeks and saying X or Y can’t be done, while Southeast Asian companies were jumping at the chance to build stuff.
There’s a giant cultural shift that needs to happen in the U.S. to get that back—not sacrificing labor laws, like China does, but the same idea that X or Y CAN be done, and actually jumping at the chance to build stuff instead of feeling entitled to it.
We do have agency, but the agency actually starts in the U.S., in education and culture, and not with a company like Apple.
It doesn't seem like money is the only issue. Infinity dollars won't help if the culture is radioactively toxic and shitty. (Arguably if you had infinity dollars you could spend it on therapists and counselors to fix the culture.)
As mentioned upthread, if you go to an American machine shop, they'll take two weeks to get back to you, and generally be a PITA to work with, vs China's jumping at the chance to build stuff.
> As mentioned upthread, if you go to an American machine shop, they'll take two weeks to get back to you, and generally be a PITA to work with, vs China's jumping at the chance to build stuff.
Probably because the Chinese are working 996. I know people who work 996, in China, and they dislike it as much as I would.
You don't have to work 996 to have an attitude of let's help the customer take their product to market. The American machine shop will laugh at you for not being a machinist, and tell you oh we don't do powder coating, we don't make cardboard boxes or styrofoam inserts. So then you, as the customer trying to get a product to market gotta run around town figuring it all out.
Meanwhile, you start talking to the Chinese machine shop guy, and he's all yeah my brother's does powder coating, his uncle does cardboard boxes and styrofoam inserts are another relative. The American attitude could go that and not work 996, but that's why it's not just about the money.
So basically you're blaming American workers for an attitude problem, when the real issue is, due to offshoring, the supply chain either doesn't exist here or isn't so centralized/expansive enough that someone has random relatives in related manufacturing businesses they're motivated to send work to?
So basically, you're being unfair.
And, from personal experience, while it's not exactly the same, when I've worked with American tradesmen, they've always had someone they could refer me to for related work.
These people will never stop to think that they are the problem in society, society has been molded in their neoliberal image where everyone is a savvy consumer and worker. We have 40 years of living in such a society and income inequality is worse than the gilded age, life expectancy is regressing, and children are doing worse in school; people don't even have the time to enjoy themselves and are forced to consume to be part of culture. Why we took all this for granted because a couple of MBA fuckups thought they knew better than the rest of us, I'll never know. Well actually I do know, because they were so greedy they wanted to make slightly more money rather than provide Americans good jobs.
Yes. It's a fundamental attitude problem of "that's not my job, it's your problem". It's like after your car gets into a crash. You just want your car back the way it was before the crash, assuming you don't take the insurance pay out. You want to be taken care of. But no, you gotta take it to a mechanic, then a body shop, and then a glass place. Or for software "well, it works on my machine". Even if we take the attitude out of the picture, if you're operating a business, you don't have time to spare. Having to find vendors for each step of the process takes time that could be better spent working on the product.
First off, if you have a car accident and one shop doesn't do everything to fix it, you went to a terrible shop. I've never seen a body repair shop that didn't do all that.
But that's beside the point.
Do you honestly expect a machine shop, a place that specializes in creating or fixing or modifying pieces of metal, to find you packaging and fluff for inside the package and then ship it to your customers? Why?
I'm absolutely confused on why you would expect a company that has literally nothing to do with an area of business to just do that thing for you for your convenience.
Do you expect your plumber to also put your floors down? Do you expect your doctor to also clean your teeth or do your taxes?
This isn't an 'attitude problem', this is a 'you have irrational expectations' problem.
I think US regulation is a huge part of what you're talking about though. In the US it is a literally pain to do anything new. I work at a chemical plant, and it took years (I'm not exaggerating, it was something like 2-3 years) to get all the permits to build a new unit. Because of how slow the city is.
So when you talk about how Asian companies were quicker to jump on new things, that's exactly what I think of. I haven't worked in Asia, but I imagine their government is not holding them back with red tape even a tenth as much.
This is the key passage. That may be true at some point, but it isn't now:
> The filing also disputed SpaceX’s argument that it is a “carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government.” Evidence presented by SpaceX shows only that it carried SpaceX employee letters to the crew of the International Space Station and “crew supplies provided for by the US government in its contracts with SpaceX to haul cargo to the ISS,” the filing said. “They do not show that the government has contracted with SpaceX as a ‘mail carrier.’”
> SpaceX’s argument “is rife with speculation regarding its plans for the future,” the ex-employees’ attorneys told the NMB. “One can only surmise that the reason for its constant reference to its future intent to develop its role as a ‘common carrier’ is the lack of current standing in that capacity.” The filing said Congress would have to add space travel to the Railway Labor Act’s jurisdiction in order for SpaceX to be considered a common carrier.
Would you say that about really well-edited scene in a movie, or a photograph that feels perfect, or a joke with perfect delivery?
A lot of those things are defined by timing and the space between moments that aren't exactly fully rational. And, if they're doing it well, they make you feel something, even if you can't describe exactly how they're doing it.
A "beautiful" font is like that. The font itself is not beautiful on its own, imo; it's raw material. The beauty comes out in how it's used, when you can look at A or B completed thing and say, oh yeah, B feels "better," but I don't know exactly why. It's not just because of the font, but the font 100% matters.
I'd wish a lot of people who make statements like "it just doesn't matter,"
or "this is meaningless" or "this is stupid," or any statement that terminates without some kind of qualify or scope, perhaps take a moment and also add "to me" to it and consider if there might be people for whom that statement is not true.
It’s, hilariously, the opposite: the exposure of this idea makes every other product better and Apple can’t change it (until they do).
Product tying is not a thing you can bypass.
This is idea is independent of whether Apple’s strategy is good or bad, legal or not. Product tying can’t be undermined, or it’s not actually a problem.
Dongle-based license management or DRM isn't the same as product tying; each dongle just validates the license for the use of a piece of software. But forcing customers to only use ink cartridges from a specific brand, deliberately rejecting or invalidating third-party refill options? That is a form of product tying, and it is being deemed illegal in more and more countries.
Another razor I’ve used is whether the user has chosen the content or what will appear, when it comes to naming navigational elements. Strawman* example: “My Favorites” when you populated the list vs “Your Favorites.”
*Strawman example because this one could easily just be “Favorites,” which imo is the preferred way: avoid ownership pronouns unless it actually makes sense to use them.
In Safari settings (Settings > Apps > Safari) there’s an option to use “bottom” vs “compact”, which brings back the tab button. Much better interface tradeoffs.
It does take up two lines, where in iOS 18 it accomplished that feat in one line. At least it reduces when you scroll down. I can live with that.
The other behavior I really can't stand is the search icon behavior in Apple Music. You click on it and it swipes into a search bar that you can't use, then swipes up on top of the keyboard. It's very jarring.
It’s a solid movie. If a young person doesn’t like it, that’s fine, but I shit you not, your feelings about that movie are not just nostalgia. It’s executed very well.
There’s a giant cultural shift that needs to happen in the U.S. to get that back—not sacrificing labor laws, like China does, but the same idea that X or Y CAN be done, and actually jumping at the chance to build stuff instead of feeling entitled to it.
We do have agency, but the agency actually starts in the U.S., in education and culture, and not with a company like Apple.