Daring Fireball

My thanks to WorkOS for sponsoring last week at DF. Does your app get fake signups, throwaway emails, or users abusing your free tier? Or worse, bots attacks and brute force attempts?

WorkOS Radar can block all this and more. Their simple API gives you advanced device fingerprinting that can detect bad actors, bots, and suspicious behavior.

Your users trust you. Keep it that way. Check out WorkOS Radar today.

Tom Warren, The Verge:

Earlier this month you could search for “Google” on Bing and get a page that looked a lot like Google, complete with a special search bar, an image resembling a Google Doodle, and even some small text under the search bar just like Google search.

The misleading UI no longer appears on the Google search result of Bing this week, just days after it was originally discovered by posters on Reddit.

So much for my praise for Microsoft still having it in them to rat-fuck without shame. They’ve gone soft.

Update: OK it’s not so much that Microsoft has stopped the trickery, but more like they’ve just turned the dial down a little bit. The Google-Doodle-style illustration is still there, but on desktop browsers, at least, they’ve stopped the autoscrolling that hides the Bing branding and site navigation at the top of the page. But if you have Mobile Safari set to use Bing as its default search and search for “Google” from the location field, you get the Google-lookalike layout with the Bing branding scrolled out of view. I’d say Microsoft’s dirty trick is still in place. Good for them.

Tim Hardwick, last week for MacRumors, “Apple Smart Home Hub Launch Possibly Delayed Until Later in Year”:

Apple’s long-rumoured smart home hub or “command center” may not arrive in the spring as previously expected, according to Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman. [...]

Apple originally planned to introduce the home hub in March 2025. However, writing in his latest Power On newsletter, Gurman says that the device “may take longer to reach consumers,” owing to the operating system’s heavy reliance on App Intents features that won’t be ready until iOS 18.4 and iOS 19. This in itself means “it’s plausible that the hardware itself will ship later,” adds Gurman.

Here’s Gurman in his own words:

Then there’s the brand-new smart home hub. This device has a roughly 7-inch screen and can help manage household tasks, run apps and conduct video calls. Consumers will be able to hang it on a wall or place it on a countertop — perhaps in a few spots around the home.

Apple has been planning to introduce the home hub in March, but it may take longer to reach consumers. The device’s new operating system — code-named Pebble — is heavily tied to App Intents features coming in iOS 18.4 and iOS 19, so it’s plausible that the hardware itself will ship a bit later.

How many Apple products that miss “expected” ship dates that were announced only by Gurman do we need before MacRumors writers, and the others on the Gurman regurgitation re-blogging beat, start to wonder whether it’s really the case, as Gurman’s reporting would have us believe, that every single product from Apple winds up shipping months or even years later than intended?

Maybe Gurman’s right, and Apple hasn’t shipped a single product on schedule since like maybe the original AirPods back in 2016 (an absolute banger of a scoop, from before Gurman left 9to5Mac for Bloomberg).

Or, and I’m just tossing this out there, maybe the way companies that are good at shipping new products actually ship new products is by setting aggressive, probably impossible, internal milestones to keep the entire team inside the company and manufacturing partners in the supply chain moving with urgency until the thing is actually ready to announce and ship. And that by reporting these milestones as actual expected ship dates, repeatedly, it makes Mark Gurman and Bloomberg News wrong, not the products late, when those dates are missed without the products ever having been announced. Something like that could happen when the incentive structure of a news publication is based on whether the reporting moves stock prices, not whether it turns out to be accurate.

I’m sure it’s just the case, though, that Apple has been unable to ship anything new on schedule for close to a decade.

Joanna Stern, in her weekly Tech Things newsletter for the WSJ:

Despite what my iPhone’s frequent notification summaries report, my husband isn’t messy, he isn’t sad and he definitely didn’t take out the garbage — because, again, I don’t have one. Wife? Yes. Husband? No.

As part of Apple Intelligence, the company rolled out these AI-powered summaries. Instead of scrolling through a mountain of missed alerts, you get little condensed summaries, grouped by app. Great concept, not quite “intelligent” execution.

Kyle Wiggers, writing at TechCrunch:

Google says it has begun requiring users to turn on JavaScript, the widely used programming language to make web pages interactive, in order to use Google Search. In an email to TechCrunch, a company spokesperson claimed that the change is intended to “better protect” Google Search against malicious activity, such as bots and spam, and to improve the overall Google Search experience for users. The spokesperson noted that, without JavaScript, many Google Search features won’t work properly and that the quality of search results tends to be degraded.

The Google spokesperson told TechCrunch that, on average, “fewer than .1%” of searches on Google are done by people who disable JavaScript. That’s no small number at Google scale. Google processes around 8.5 billion searches per day, so one can assume that millions of people performing searches through Google aren’t using JavaScript.

One of Google’s motivations here may be inhibiting third-party tools that give insights into Google Search trends and traffic. According to a post on Search Engine Roundtable on Friday, a number of “rank-checking” tools — tools that indicate how websites are performing in search engines — began experiencing issues with Google Search around the time Google’s JavaScript requirement came into force.

I long ago stopped being a fan (or regular user) of Google Search, but the SEO industry is worse (to keep the Obi-Wan Kenobi quote references going from my headline, you’ll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than “SEO experts”), so I’m amenable to an argument from Google that this is a justifiable step in their never-ending war with SEO scammers seeking to game search results in their favor.

But the bottom line is that with this change, Google Search is more of an app than it is a website. A website is a server where you can make requests over the HTTP protocol and get results in HTML format. A server that communicates with clients via executable JavaScript is not a website. Whether it’s a justifiable decision or not, I don’t buy for a second that it’s a necessary decision on Google’s part. Thus I find this decision sad, but given the course Google has been on for the last 15 years or so, I’m also unsurprised. Old original Google was a company of and for the open web. Post 2010-or-so Google is a company that sees the web as a de facto proprietary platform that it owns and controls. Those who experience the web through Google Chrome and Google Search are on that proprietary not-closed-per-se-but-not-really-open web.

Requiring JavaScript for Google Search is not about the fact that 99.9 percent of humans surfing the web have JavaScript enabled in their browsers. It’s about taking advantage of that fact to tightly control client access to Google Search results. But the nature of the true open web is that the server sticks to the specs for the HTTP protocol and the HTML content format, and clients are free to interpret that as they see fit. Original, novel, clever ways to do things with website output is what made the web so thrilling, fun, useful, and amazing. This JavaScript mandate is Google’s attempt at asserting that it will only serve search results to exactly the client software that it sees fit to serve. That’s Google’s right. But it’s sad.

Here’s a good thread on Hacker News discussing the change, with some interesting commentary on the state of the no-JavaScript web. Also worth pointing out that Kagi, the best search engine in the world, works fine without JavaScript.

I’ll end with my longstanding hot take, which, as the years go on, seems more and more obviously true and no longer a hot take at all: The web would be better off if browsers had never added support for scripting. The web would be much faster; much better for its original purpose of delivering content to consume, not software to interact with; and much more secure and private. More control would remain in the hands of client software — and thus in the hands of users — than server-side.

Parker Ortolani works near Grand Central and wrote a great post about the in-character Severance experience on Wednesday, replete with photos, both early in the day when the diorama was largely empty, and later in the day, when it was swarmed with fans and general onlookers because the actors and director Ben Stiller were there. Blogging at its best.

Chance Miller, reporting for 9to5Mac:

Here are the changes included in iOS 18.3 for Apple Intelligence notification summaries:

• When you enable notification summaries, iOS 18.3 will make it clearer that the feature — like all Apple Intelligence features — is a beta.

• You can now disable notification summaries for an app directly from the Lock Screen or Notification Center by swiping, tapping “Options,” then choosing the “Turn Off Summaries” option.

• On the Lock Screen, notification summaries now use italicized text to better distinguish them from normal notifications.

• In the Settings app, Apple now warns users that notification summaries “may contain errors.”

Additionally, notification summaries have been temporarily disabled entirely for the News & Entertainment category of apps. Notification summaries will be re-enabled for this category with a future software update as Apple continues to refine the experience.

Using italics for summarized notifications is a really clever design. It feels literary. Italics sounds like a different voice to me, which is exactly what these Apple-generated summaries are. Seems so obvious now that I’m seeing it in use, I’m kicking myself for not having suggested it.

And while I can’t blame Apple for temporarily disabling notification summaries for news apps, after just one full day on beta 3, I already miss them. The mistakes were embarrassing, no question, but overall the summaries were useful for me.

Maddy Myers, writing for Polygon:

But the weirdest part of the reveal video, in my opinion, is the implication that the Joy-Cons can be used as a mouse.

This was already rumored, and if I hadn’t seen those rumors, then I might not have understood what I was looking at during the portion of the teaser that depicts the Joy-Cons sliding around on a hard surface like a cute lil’ mouse. Because of those rumors, though, I’m now convinced that this is a thing and the Switch 2 will include this feature. The video specifically shows the Joy-Con mouse position as perpendicular to the surface its on. The new Joy-Con mechanic is further cemented by the part of the video that shows a Joy-Con on its side with a section that really looks like an optical mouse light. [...]

But this is Nintendo, and Nintendo consoles almost always have a gimmick. The gimmick isn’t always good. Although there were a couple of games that made excellent use of the Wii’s motion controls, I can think of plenty more that were deeply un-fun. Then again, the Wii U’s gimmick — its tablet — paced the way to the first Nintendo Switch, the super-adaptable console we all know and love. So you really never know.

I’ll just say that Nintendo’s controller gimmicks are usually good, so if the new joy-cons can be used like mice, I’ll bet it’s in an unexpected way.

Kyle Maclachlan, remembering his friend and longtime collaborator David Lynch, on Instagram:

What I saw in him was an enigmatic and intuitive man with a creative ocean bursting forth inside of him. He was in touch with something the rest of us wish we could get to.

Our friendship blossomed on Blue Velvet and then Twin Peaks and I always found him to be the most authentically alive person I’d ever met.

David was in tune with the universe and his own imagination on a level that seemed to be the best version of human. He was not interested in answers because he understood that questions are the drive that make us who we are. They are our breath.

Another fun promo for Severance season 2.

And a promo on Apple’s homepage featuring a computer made by another company. And a free in-universe book, The Lexington Letters, at Apple Books. (Update: Ah, the book came out in March 2022, as part of season 1. Still: fun! Apple Books does not make the publication date prominent.)

Brian Tallerico, writing for RogerEbert.com:

David Lynch saw my dreams. As a teenager growing up in suburban America in the ’80s, “Blue Velvet” and “Twin Peaks” hit like a bolt of lightning. Not only did they capture something about the sinister, surreal underbelly of life under the picket fences, but they said something directly to anyone who thought they could be an artist: You don’t have to do what everyone else is doing.

Lynch was one of those creative voices who found his own octave, doing for film what people like David Bowie or Prince did for music, shattering expectations of what a piece of art could be. Even when his work missed the mark, which was rare, Lynch was never anything less than a singular artist, a creator who never once succumbed to the desire to please that derails so much potential in his industry. When people point to Lynch works like “Mulholland Dr.” or “The Straight Story” or even those of us who love “Lost Highway,” it’s not just that specific film that speaks to them — it’s the sense that the potential of the form is limitless as long as people like Lynch are involved. The entire art form was shifted by him and is now lessened by his absence. We owe it to him to burst through the doors he opened. [...]

Lynch’s fifth film, 1990’s “Wild at Heart” would be one of his most divisive — it’s often pointed to as Lynch at his most excessive — but it was what he did on television that same year that rocked the entertainment world: “Twin Peaks.” I could write a book about what “Twin Peaks” meant to a 15-year-old entertainment junkie. To summarize, it exploded the potential of the form. People who watch “Twin Peaks” over three decades later need to understand the TV landscape on which it landed. I’m not saying there wasn’t quality TV in the ’80s, but there was less risk-taking than in the 2020s, and watching the saga of Laura Palmer next to formulaic dramas or laugh-track-heavy sitcoms felt like a true shock to the system. For more on “Twin Peaks” and why it mattered, check this out.

A thought that’s been swirling in my head for 30-some years but only today properly crystalized: Lynch is the only artist I love whose work I largely don’t “get”. Nothing exemplifies that more than Twin Peaks — I never stopped thinking that there must be something there that I simply wasn’t getting, but I absolutely loved it. But now I realize that’s a big part of why I loved it. I don’t like to be confused but I do like it when it’s David Lynch confusing me. It’s still hard to believe that show was on commercial network TV.

Like Kubrick, he was quick to embrace new technology as it became available and to see its artistic potential. He sung the praises of digital video and declared himself done with film years ahead of the industry. Lynch called bullshit when he saw it, and he always let you know what he really thought. Also like Kubrick (whom Lynch, unsurprisingly, named first when asked his favorite filmmakers), Lynch’s later years were sparse with new work, but the work he delivered continued to elevate the art form. 2017’s 18-episode Twin Peaks: The Return was so utterly Lynchian — a perfect capstone to a remarkable career.

Ray Ratto, writing for Defector, gets it right. Bob Uecker was just the best:

He was the face and voice of baseball cinema, the man whose line-reading made “Ju-u-u-u-st a bit outside” so good that “iconic” doesn’t remotely cover its impact. Even if you’re not a seamhead, you likely came across Bob Uecker and smiled.

So Thursday’s announcement that Uecker has died at age 90, due to small cell lung cancer, came as a blow. Nine decades is a good long run, but there was never a sense that he was running out of material; Uecker was still a joy to hear on Brewers broadcasts even in Year 54 of being the voice of Wisconsin baseball for two-and-a-half generations. The reaction to his passing was unanimous in the same ways and for the same reasons that the response to Vin Scully’s death was unanimous — it was an outpouring of both sadness at the loss and gratitude for all the time we got to spend with him. In an epochally angry time in America, at a moment when it isn’t hard to find even anti-puppy polemics with a keystroke, Uecker gets a pass from most everyone. Yes he defined baseball, but he also managed to become more than merely Mister Baseball. From the moment of his first appearance on Johnny Carson’s definitive version of the Tonight Show, which Uecker earned merely by mastering the tripartite arts of comedy writing, unabashed self-deprecation, and martini-dry humor, he was recognizable as that rarest of Americans, the guy you’d sit back down to listen to even if you were already halfway out the door. Put another way, Norm Macdonald thought he was one of the funniest men he ever met. Beat that with a stick.

MLB.com has a fine obituary that includes a slew of links and videos. Uecker, 90 years old, was on the call for the Brewers right up until the bitter end of last season, when they fell to the Mets in the 9th inning. His final words as a broadcaster: “I’m telling you. That one — had some sting on it.” So does this one.

If you want to lose a few hours in laughter, head down the rabbit hole of Uecker’s 100-some appearances on Carson. Here’s the first one that just came up for me now, a 1976 appearance where Uecker, utterly deadpan as ever, makes Mel Brooks spit out his coffee.

Ann Telnaes, from her personal site (alas) on Substack:

I’ve worked for the Washington Post since 2008 as an editorial cartoonist. I have had editorial feedback and productive conversations — and some differences — about cartoons I have submitted for publication, but in all that time I’ve never had a cartoon killed because of who or what I chose to aim my pen at. Until now.

The cartoon that was killed criticizes the billionaire tech and media chief executives who have been doing their best to curry favor with incoming President-elect Trump. There have been multiple articles recently about these men with lucrative government contracts and an interest in eliminating regulations making their way to Mar-a-lago. The group in the cartoon included Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook & Meta founder and CEO, Sam Altman/OpenAI CEO, Patrick Soon-Shiong/LA Times publisher, the Walt Disney Company/ABC News, and Jeff Bezos/Washington Post owner. [...]

As an editorial cartoonist, my job is to hold powerful people and institutions accountable. For the first time, my editor prevented me from doing that critical job. So I have decided to leave the Post. I doubt my decision will cause much of a stir and that it will be dismissed because I’m just a cartoonist. But I will not stop holding truth to power through my cartooning, because as they say, “Democracy dies in darkness”.

The only thing wrong with the cartoon is that she drew it too soon to include Tim Cook. The cartoon isn’t even particularly scathing. I’d describe it as tame even. It shows these moguls as offering money to Trump — which they are! What a bizarre decision by Telnaes’s editors. It’d be like me getting offended if someone drew a cartoon that showed me wasting money betting on the Dallas Cowboys. If the shoe fits you have to wear it.

This isn’t a sign that the Washington Post has taken another turn for the worse. It’s simply proof of what many of us wrote before the election, when Bezos kiboshed the Post editorial board’s endorsement of Kamala Harris. In one fell swoop that decision collapsed the entirety of The Washington Post’s editorial integrity. This Telnaes fiasco is just more proof. More will follow until Bezos sells.

Kelly Hooper, reporting for Politico on 9 January 2021:

The Biden Inaugural Committee on Saturday released its list of donors, which included Google, Microsoft, Boeing and several other major corporations. The list contains all contributors who donated more than $200 to President-elect Joe Biden’s Jan. 20 inauguration ceremony and related activities.

That website is now defunct, and the “bideninaugural.org” domain redirects (for the next 17 days) to “www.whitehouse.gov”, but Internet Archive has a capture from Inauguration Day, 20 January 2021.

Apple is not listed, and while there is a “Tim Cook” on the list, he’s listed as residing in Michigan.

All “great American traditions” have to start somewhere, and perhaps Tim Cook — the one from California, by way of Alabama — believes the great American tradition of donating money to presidential inaugural committees is only beginning now. Or, giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he only saw fit to contribute $199 to Biden’s inauguration and thus wasn’t listed, and bumped his donation by $999,801 this time. You know, for “unity”.

(Thanks to reader Daniel Streicher for the link.)

Hard not to think of this clip today, re: an egomaniacal villain, whose worldview is frozen several decades in the past, setting the terms for an extortion racket.

Axios co-founder Mike Allen:

Apple CEO Tim Cook will personally donate $1 million to President-elect Trump’s inaugural committee, sources with knowledge of the donation tell Axios. [...]

Cook, a proud Alabama native, believes the inauguration is a great American tradition, and is donating to the inauguration in the spirit of unity, the sources said. The company is not expected to give.

Donald Trump tried to overthrow the legitimate results of the 2020 election to remain in office, and as part of his efforts, inspired a violent mob of insurrectionists to invade the U.S. Capitol and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

For that reason alone — there are, of course, many others, but to me, Trump’s betrayal of U.S. democracy itself remains paramount — this donation is gross and perverse. But I’m not sure it was feasible not to play ball here. In times like this, realpolitik is the only politics. I wouldn’t have the stomach to make this donation, and those of you disgusted by this likely don’t either. Few people are cut out to be the CEO of a large multinational company like Apple. Sometimes you have to eat the shit sandwich.

It seems pretty obvious that it was Apple/Cook that leaked this to Axios, not Trump’s side, given the eye-roll-inducing “proud American tradition” spin, but more especially the nugget that only Cook personally, not Apple as a company, is contributing. That’s Cook asking for any and all ire to be directed at him, personally, not Apple. Good luck with that.

Fascinating piece by Ben Cohen for The Wall Street Journal (News+ link):

And there are two things I learned about the EUV tool I saw that I can’t get out of my head:

1. ASML teamed up with a German optical company to develop mirrors so flat that if they were scaled up to the size of Germany itself, their largest imperfection would be less than a millimeter.

2. The precision of EUV machines is comparable to directing a laser beam from your house and hitting a ping-pong ball on the moon.

It took decades for these absurdly sophisticated machines to make their way from labs to fabs. And until recently, it wasn’t clear if the company’s audacious bet on EUV lithography would ever pay off. In 2012, ASML was strapped for cash and sold a 23% equity stake to Intel, Samsung Electronics and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, which meant its biggest customers were literally invested in the company’s success.

ASML soon ramped up production — very, very slowly. The company delivered the first EUV system in 2010. Not until 2020 did it deliver the 100th. And last year was a busy one: ASML shipped a total of 42 EUV machines.

The piece is also a profile of one ASML engineer, Brienna Hall, who is one of a small cadre of frontline support engineers who keep these machines operating perfectly. The article’s headline, though, is bizarrely framed to suggest that she’s the only such support engineer in the world. The weird headline distracts from an otherwise fascinating story.

Speaking of Simon Willison, I greatly enjoyed this post from last week, with some of the self-imposed principles he follows writing his excellent eponymous blog. Amongst them:

• I always include the names of the people who created the content I am linking to, if I can figure that out. Credit is really important, and it’s also useful for myself because I can later search for someone’s name and find other interesting things they have created that I linked to in the past. If I’ve linked to someone’s work three or more times I also try to notice and upgrade them to a dedicated tag. [...]
• If the original author reads my post, I want them to feel good about it. I know from my own experience that often when you publish something online the silence can be deafening. Knowing that someone else read, appreciated, understood and then shared your work can be very pleasant.
• A slightly self-involved concern I have is that I like to prove that I’ve read it. This is more for me than for anyone else: I don’t like to recommend something if I’ve not read that thing myself, and sticking in a detail that shows I read past the first paragraph helps keep me honest about that.

Every step of the way, I found myself nodding my head, thinking to myself, I do that too! — right down to creating tags for people after I’ve mentioned their work or simply credited their bylines a few times. (The difference is that Willison seemingly isn’t a procrastinator, and I am, so my decades of tagging aren’t yet exposed to anyone but me.)

Then I got to this:

There are a lot of great link blogs out there, but the one that has influenced me the most in how I approach my own is John Gruber’s Daring Fireball. I really like the way he mixes commentary, quotations and value-added relevant information.

And now it doesn’t seem quite as amazing that I was nodding my head in agreement with each of his guidelines. But, call me biased, it’s still a hell of a good start to a blogging rulebook.

Simon Willison:

A lot has happened in the world of Large Language Models over the course of 2024. Here’s a review of things we figured out about the field in the past twelve months, plus my attempt at identifying key themes and pivotal moments. [...]

I think telling people that this whole field is environmentally catastrophic plagiarism machines that constantly make things up is doing those people a disservice, no matter how much truth that represents. There is genuine value to be had here, but getting to that value is unintuitive and needs guidance.

Those of us who understand this stuff have a duty to help everyone else figure it out.

Nobody is doing a better job of that than Willison. I learned so much from reading this piece — I bet you will too.

Update: Anil Dash:

I think everyone who has an opinion, positive or negative, about LLMs, should read how @simonwillison has summed up what’s happened in the space this year. He’s the most credible, most independent, most honest, and most technically fluent person watching the space.

Couldn’t say it better myself.

There are metaphors, and then there are metaphors.

Happy New Year. Buckle up.