> Why did these 2000s era interoperability protocols fail?
They didn't. SOAP is still widely used. COM and CORBA and similar IPC were mostly replaced by HTTP-based protocols (which would have seemed as a wasteful overkill for a few decades ago, now nobody bats an eye) like REST or GraphQL.
> what does MCP do different?
Nothing, it reinvents the wheel. To be charitable, let's call it starting from a clean slate :)
> Was it a matter of security issues in a newly networked world?
Lol, no. As we all know, "S" in "MCP" stands for "security". These older geezers like SOAP can be secure when properly implemented.
> A matter of bad design?
They are definitely much more complex then some of the newer stuff, mostly because they grew to support more complex use cases that newer protocols can avoid or simplify. And yeah as commented on other comments, heavy "oop" influence which new stuff has rolled back considerably.
> A matter of being too calcified
More a matter of not being in vogue and not supported out of the box in languages such as JS or Python.
> They didn't. SOAP is still widely used. COM and CORBA and similar IPC were mostly replaced by HTTP-based protocols (which would have seemed as a wasteful overkill for a few decades ago, now nobody bats an eye) like REST or GraphQL.
You have to consider how much REST gives you for "free": encryption, compression, authentication, partial content, retransmission, congestion control, etc.
Huh, I guess I take being on top of HTTP(s) for granted. Looks like DCOM was on top of TCP, but I'm guessing it had to implement everything else in its own bespoke format...
Since the title isn't very informative, here's a tldr:
> Is 90% of code going to be written by AI? I don’t know. What I do know is, that for me, on this project, the answer is already yes. [...] At the same time, for me, AI doesn’t own the code. I still review every line, shape the architecture, and carry the responsibility for how it runs in production. But the sheer volume of what I now let an agent generate would have been unthinkable even six months ago.
Written by Armin Ronacher of Flask, Jinja, and general Python fame.
Ars has fallen a long way from what they used to be (I say this as a former subscriber).
Expect clickbait articles, shallow tech coverage, rabid commenters (I don't visit the forum but the comments were previously - mostly - of higher quality).
I still follow it because I haven't found a worthy replacement yet.
As for the article, it actually says this was within a routine consultation, ie. EU asked companies what they think and (as you point out) Apple politely responded.
Meanwhile, in one part of the EU (Croatia): urgent tax law change is being considered to allow the tax authorities to demand access (passwords, keys, etc) to any electronic/digital device or service used by a person involved with (owning, operating, or just working in) a business, "to combat tax fraud". No warrants necessary.
> The company says it will rely on “legitimate interests” as its legal basis and will offer an opt-out so members can refuse use of their data for training
"Legitimate interest" is a very specific term in context of GDPR. Not a lawyer, but have been looking into it previously, and I doubt "we want to feed data to our AI so we can make more money" passes the Legitimate Interest Assesment (LIA) test.
That looks like it would be easy to argue that it passes (claiming "makes the platform better for everyone", "not achievable without using the data", "the data is data that the people share voluntarily on the platform and isn't sensitive", "they're customers, we e-mailed them and they could opt out if they cared", "we expect this to have no impact on the individuals" (until the AI starts regurgitating sensitive details, but that's an "oops" for later), and "we are offering an opt-out even though we wouldn't have to" (claimed despite the lawyer strongly urging an opt-out, otherwise they wouldn't have even offered that).
They could argue whatever they like -- whether that'd be defensible if a probe is launched (and LinkedIn / Microsoft is big enough target for this) is another matter.
GDPR allows processing based either on consent (which doesn't need to be "written" but does need to be explicit and informed) or legitimate interest (or some other reasons that tend to be irrelevant for this kind of thing).
Legitimate interest does NOT require consent, is murky, and thus often gets used to justify things that should not exist under GDPR but the most likely consequence is that the company gets to do it for 3+ years before being told "no, you can't do that anymore"...
The GDPR is about personal data though. And content your produce is not by nature personal data "in abstract".
That content could contain personal data (such as when including it in your post), but that's an exception rather than a norm. And if we'd be following exceptions, even crawling websites could be illegal under the GDPR.
I wanted to lose weight. I ran a lot (only 5 hours out of the week), ate the same high caloric foods, and lost a lot of weight. Clearly GP's assertion isn't correct, because enough exercise does lose weight.
I love how the common consensus in comments here is not "what should we do in our societies to increase the number of old people in good health?" but "they're lying".
Rejecting bad data is part of what we should do to get people healthy. This isn't a controlled scientific study, it's just a news article about a government supplied statistic with a lot of unsubstantiated claims as to why.
Because the places where everyone lives to 200, are also the places devastated by war or full of corruption.
It's like how every asylum seeker in the uk is born 1st of january. It's not because they're born 1st of january, it's because they burned their documents in order to illegally migrate. But if you took that at face value, you'd assume that afghanistan only ever births people on the 1st of january.
I have tuned the news out as much as possible, as soon as I've realized it's mostly show biz.
The News, like any other media, is in the business of producing content and being watched/read/listened to, as much as possible. Not in the business of keeping me informed about what's going on in the world (that's relevant to me).
I don't want to bury my head in the sand. I do read/watch/listen to some of it. Usually weeklies, like The Economist, and I have a daily digest newsletter that dedupes and sends me local news from the day before. Between that and what I hear on the grapevine / from my friends, I trust that I am informed enough.
They didn't. SOAP is still widely used. COM and CORBA and similar IPC were mostly replaced by HTTP-based protocols (which would have seemed as a wasteful overkill for a few decades ago, now nobody bats an eye) like REST or GraphQL.
> what does MCP do different?
Nothing, it reinvents the wheel. To be charitable, let's call it starting from a clean slate :)
> Was it a matter of security issues in a newly networked world?
Lol, no. As we all know, "S" in "MCP" stands for "security". These older geezers like SOAP can be secure when properly implemented.
> A matter of bad design?
They are definitely much more complex then some of the newer stuff, mostly because they grew to support more complex use cases that newer protocols can avoid or simplify. And yeah as commented on other comments, heavy "oop" influence which new stuff has rolled back considerably.
> A matter of being too calcified
More a matter of not being in vogue and not supported out of the box in languages such as JS or Python.
reply