Your point was most of my read on the article.

Yet the root problem seems structural: the misplaced incentives of the quarterly earnings-driven stock market. Short term gains most often win over long term innovation.

Yet they were about far more than just vacuums!

In the 2000s, no one was doing what they were doing.

Missing the point.

iRobot was far more than vacuums until they weren't.

Read the article. The author spells it out.

I lived it. I read about them and bought a Roomba back when they first sold them. They had so much in the pipeline, consumer and otherwise. Hell, they even had a STEM kit programmable Roomba.

History repeats itself because people forget.

It just says that they sold off their defense robot division and launched a consumer products company.

They just aren’t consumer centric. The neato was so much better than the Roomba and that was so long ago

The top comment completely misses the point.

iRobot was remarkably innovative until they were enshittified decades before the term was coined.

and perhaps this new initiative for ads in the App Store is an attempt to replace the money lost by Europe and Japan allowing alternate app stores

Doubtful. App Store ads predate European and Japanese regulation, if Apple wants to compete on-merits then they should be removing ads to justify their developer fees.

Okay, blame the regulators. Apple is right as always.

So to be clear, anything other than a 4chan-like unmoderated chronological feed results in loss of section 230 protection?

Heck, even 4chan wouldn't qualify, because despite considerably looser content rules they still actually do perform moderation.

Most sites that accept user-generated-content are forced to do some level of moderation, lest they become a cesspit of one form or another (CSAM, threats, hate speech, exposing porn to underage users, stolen credit card sales, etc...)

"Vote with your feet" is a privileged assertion

The steel man of your argument sounds like:

If we let states have more power, they may enact good or bad policies that others cannot as easily enjoy or escape because of their financial or family standings prevent them from moving. National policies allow everyone to benefit from good policies.

While this is true, the reality frequently seems to be that no bold policy is made or maintained due to polarization or perceived risk. Isolating policies to places willing to try them out is a better outcome. If the policy seems valuable, more states will adopt it

And if you have bad policies nationally, it’s even harder for those less privileged to escape them due to things like immigration laws, costs, language barrier, xenophobia, etc

Are immigrants privileged then?

Speaking as an immigrant: yes, absolutely! Legal immigrants generally have to be quite privileged in their place of origin to have the education level necessary to clear the bar in most places to be considered for any kind of visa that allows permanent residency, and to be financially well off enough to afford both the paperwork and the move itself.

You added the qualifier “legal”.

What about illegal?

I added the qualifier "legal" because that's the one I can speak of from experience.

For illegal immigrants, I would say that if successful in crossing the border, they are in a more privileged position compared to their compatriots who did not. Not more privileged than citizens or legal immigrants here, though, that's for sure.

I know this is a shitpost but someone has to say it:

Yo dawg I hear you like downdetector so...

There have been ads in Apple News for years now. There were not, at its outset.

And I hate them.

Yes. Steve would take a giant dump all over this nonsense.

Apple is increasingly at risk of similar enshittification as Google.