Maybe. Could just be a pre filter.

> it may be sucky aesthetically

It's not a matter of being pretty, but of being robust and maintainable.

What? No. Not legally. You know. Copyright and all that.

What do you mean copyright? If I torrent this and train a model that changes every second m in a sentence to n can I ship as my software?

You can drag a pdf into Keynote, and get a vector quality image. This feature is great for science when a plot is made elsewhere (R or matplotlib). Or you can even drag in an SVG, even from something you find in a browser. Drag, drop.

Why in heaven's name is it nearly impossible to do the same with Powerpoint is a mystery. You still have to paste a bit image.

I mean, I can run a pseudo random number generator, and produce something novel too.

This is clearly for reasons of security.

I don't think Apple is terribly interested in market share for Safari. What they are interested is preserving their competitive advantage in privacy.

The security/privacy argument has been debunked many times.

How do you explain that all other OSes, including Apple's own macOS, manage to allow other browser engines?

Do you think the iOS team is that incompetent?

iOS is much more secure than macOS.

Debunked where? Do you even understand what a web engine does?

If it's about security and privacy, why push more people away from the Web to native apps that they know is less secure [1][2]?

> WebKit’s sandbox profile on iOS is orders of magnitude more stringent than the sandbox for native iOS apps.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62277271d3bf7... [2] https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-dma-review

Native iOS apps are sandboxed and even more secure. The reason the web engine is tied down is because web engines are insecure by nature. And now you want Apple to allow anyone to write one?

> even more secure

Based on what? Happy to be wrong, but the quote in my reply was Apple's stance on the WebKit vs native iOS apps

> I don't think Apple is terribly interested in market share for Safari

Google pays Apple $20B a year because of the market share Safari has on iOS.

I'd call that "interest"

That's 10% of their turnover (and likely mostly pure profit, as they seem to spend a fraction of that on Safari)

Try again. Anyone can write a browser that uses the existing web engine and connect it to any search engine they want. Make it popular enough, and they can made a deal with Google.

Having Safari is a default browser is another (valid) issue, but that is a separate concern from the web engine.

But if the web engine you have to use is a) shitty and b) the same as everyone else (except slightly shittier [1]), how are you going to make it popular?

The browser engine is an important piece of the puzzle when it comes to getting people to switch browsers. If a site works faster or better on browser B, that's a reason to switch.

If Apple's WebKit engine doesn't allow you to do video calls, you could build that into your engine and actually compete.

Why would Google and Mozilla spend millions on developing and maintaining their own engines if they didn't think that it provides value, e.g. a competitive edge?

[1] In the past, Safari did get some features that other browsers on iOS didn't get, e.g. Being the default browser (you couldn't set Chrome or any other browser as the default until iOS 14(!), Nitro JIT (Safari was significantly faster than other browsers on iOS for 4 yrs), camera and microphone access (video calls only worked in Safari), Web Extensions, Apple Pay, Fullscreen API, Add to Home Screen (ironically)...

And document!

I think it depends where you are, at least for Costco.

If your model is poor, no amount of learning can fix it. If you don't think your model architecture is limited, you aren't looking hard enough.