Mike Masnick, writing for Techdirt:

Read that again. If West Virginia wins — if an actual court orders Apple to start scanning iCloud for CSAM — then every image flagged by those mandated scans becomes evidence obtained through a warrantless government search conducted without probable cause. The Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule means defense attorneys get to walk into court and demand that evidence be thrown out. And they’ll win that motion. It’s not even a particularly hard case to make.

Rob Griffiths, writing at The Robservatory:

So I have macOS Tahoe on my laptop, but I’m keeping my desktop Mac on macOS Sequoia for now. Which means I have the joy of seeing things like this wonderful notification on a regular basis. Or I did, until I found a way to block them, at least in 90 day chunks. [...]

The secret? Using device management profiles, which let you enforce policies on Macs in your organization, even if that “organization” is one Mac on your desk. One of the available policies is the ability to block activities related to major macOS updates for up to 90 days at a time (the max the policy allows), which seems like exactly what I needed.

I followed Griffiths’s instructions about a week or so ago, and I’ve been enjoying a no-red-badge System Settings icon ever since. And the Tahoe upgrade doesn’t even show up in General → Software Update. With this profile installed, the confusing interface presented after clicking the “ⓘ” button next to any available update cannot result in your upgrading to 26 Tahoe accidentally.

I waited to link to Griffiths’s post until I saw the pending update from Sequoia 15.7.3 to 15.7.4, just to make sure that was still working. And here it is. My Software Update panels makes it look like Tahoe doesn’t even exist. A delicious glass of ice water, without the visit to hell.

I have one small clarification to Griffiths’s instructions though. He writes:

4/. Optional step: I didn’t want to defer normal updates, just the major OS update, so I changed the Optional (set to your taste) section to look like this:

forceDelayedSoftwareUpdates

This way, I’ll still get notifications for updates other than the major OS update, in case Apple releases anything further for macOS Sequoia. Remember to save your changes, then quit the editor.

I was confused by this step, initially, and only edited the first line after <!-- Optional (set to your taste) -->, to change <true/> to <false/> in the next line. But what Griffiths means, and is necessary to get the behavior I wanted, requires deleting the other two lines in that section of the plist file. I don’t want to defer updates like going from 15.7.3 to 15.7.4.

Before editing:

<!-- Optional (set to your taste) -->
<key>forceDelayedSoftwareUpdates</key><true/>
<key>enforcedSoftwareUpdateMinorOSDeferredInstallDelay</key><integer>30</integer>
<key>enforcedSoftwareUpdateNonOSDeferredInstallDelay</key><integer>30</integer>

After:

<!-- Optional (set to your taste) -->
<key>forceDelayedSoftwareUpdates</key><false/>

I’ll bet that’s the behavior most of my fellow MacOS 15 Sequoia holdouts want too.

Apple’s solution to this dilemma — to show the “Tap Recents to Call” in Settings if, and only if, Unified is the current view option in the Phone app — is lazy. And as a result, it’s quite confusing.

MG Siegler, writing at Spyglass:

Of course, Netflix could have absorbed such a cost. It’s a $400B company (well, before this deal, anyway) — double Disney! Paramount Skydance? They’re worth $11B. Yes, they’re paying almost exactly $100B more than they’re worth for WBD. Yes, it’s looney. But really, it’s leverage.

To be clear, Netflix was going to pay for the deal with debt too, but they have a clear path to repay such debts. They have a great, growing business. They don’t require the backstop of one of the world’s richest men, who just so happens to be the father of the CEO. How on Earth is Paramount going to pay down this debt? I’m tempted to turn to another bit of Paramount IP for the answer:

1. Step one
2. Step two
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!

CNBC:

Block said Thursday it’s laying off more than 4,000 employees, or about half of its head count. The stock skyrocketed as much as 24% in extended trading.

“Today we shared a difficult decision with our team,” Jack Dorsey, Block’s co-founder and CEO, wrote in a letter to shareholders. “We’re reducing Block by nearly half, from over 10,000 people to just under 6,000, which means that over 4,000 people are being asked to leave or entering into consultation.” [...]

Other companies like Pinterest, CrowdStrike and Chegg have recently announced job cuts and directly attributed the layoffs to AI reshaping their workforces.

In an X post, Dorsey said he was faced with the choice of laying off staffers over several months or years “as this shift plays out,” or to “act on it now.”

Dorsey’s letter to shareholders was properly upper-and-lowercased; his memo to employees, which he posted on Twitter/X, was entirely lowercase. That’s a telling sign about who he respects. Dorsey, in that memo to employees:

we’re not making this decision because we’re in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving. but something has changed. we’re already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that’s accelerating rapidly.

i had two options: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now. i chose the latter. repeated rounds of cuts are destructive to morale, to focus, and to the trust that customers and shareholders place in our ability to lead. i’d rather take a hard, clear action now and build from a position we believe in than manage a slow reduction of people toward the same outcome.

AI is going to obviate a lot of jobs, in a lot of industries. So it goes. But in the case of these tech companies — exemplified by Block — it’s just a convenient cover story to excuse absurd over-hiring in the last 5–10 years. Say what you want about Elon Musk, but he was absolutely correct that Twitter was carrying a ton of needless employees. This reckoning was coming, and “AI” is just a convenient scapegoat.