You are 100% right.

If you dev for only one you will be leaving money on the table. But for small / solo devs I can 100% see why focusing on iOS and those high paying customers makes sense if all you care about is money.

Then once you have a customer base then you build out an android team/app.

I’m not saying it should be this way. I’m just saying I understand why it is this way.

If you look at developer experience it’s absolutely is true. Android users just prefer free/ad supported/pirated software. If you’re an android user look at your own habits. What android applications have you purchased?

You can search for statistics from any source online and you’ll get the same results. But in the end if you code for iOS you need to test and debug for fewer devices and you will make more money overall. There are wayyyy more android users but 70% of all mobile app spend is on iOS. Deving for iOS just makes sense if you like money.

https://backlinko.com/iphone-vs-android-statistics#iphone-vs-android-app-spending

deleted by creator

The problem with doing android dev work is that android users simply refuse to pay for useful apps. iOS users on the other hand are more open to it.

As a developer it makes sense to prioritize iOS if you like money.

Yes.

It’s a waste of everyone’s time for sure. It’s just good business sense to make your customers happy though.

As for typing speed perhaps ya lol. You could be faster. But I think the best approach here is using high quality locally run LLMs that don’t produce slop. For me I can count on one hand how many times I’ve had to correct things in the past month. It’s a mater of understanding how LLMs work and fine tuning. (Emphasis on the fine tuning)

My main workstation runs Linux and I use Llama.cpp. I used it with mistral’s latest largest model but I have used others in the past.

I appreciate your thoughts here. Lemmy I think, in general, has an indistinguishing anti LLM bias.

The LLM responses are more verbose but not a crazy amount so. It’s mostly adding polite social padding that some people appreciate.

As for time totally. It’s faster to write “can’t go to meeting, suggest rescheduling it for Thursday.” And proofread than to write a full boomer style letter.

In some cases literally yes. But at least for me I have to meet my customers where they are. If I try to force them to do things my way they just don’t use my services.

You’re not wrong but at least my emails will be taken seriously by some 60 year old company exec that’s still mad his secretary stopped printing his emails for him.

I can understand that. I don’t actually use chatGPT to be fair. I use a locally run open source LLM. This all being said I do think it’s important to fine tune any LLM you use to match your writing style. Else you end up with chatGPT generic style writing.

I would argue that not fine tuning a LLM to match tone and style counts as either misuse or hobbyist use.

Because in my experience some business clients feel offended or upset that you aren’t being formal with them. American businesses seem to care less I noticed but outside of the USA (particularly in Germany) I noticed that formality serves better. Also the LLM uses the thread history to add context. Stuff like “I know we agreed on meeting on Tuesday at last meeting but unfortunately I can’t do that…” this stuff matters to clients.

I don’t offload because I don’t remember. I offload because it saves me time. Of course I read what is written before I send it out.

I think it might be because AI (aka LLMs) is genuinely useful when used properly.

I use AI all the time to write emails. I give the LLM the email thread along with instructions like “I can’t make it Tuesday ask if they can do Wednesday at 2pm”

The AI will write out an email that’s polite and relevant in context. Totally worth it.

I think the problem is people/companies trying to shove LLMs where they don’t make sense.

Did you respond to the wrong message?

If you actually read the article it seems pretty factual. It lists Bush’s claims and then has a response. Seems to merit the rating.

The reporting of the Bush administration’s position and the response seems fair.

**IRAQ:**

STATUS: Since 1998, the Iraqi government has barred U.N. weapons inspectors from examining sites where some suspect that nuclear, chemical or biological weapons are made and stored. The United Nations has said it will lift sanctions against the Middle Eastern country -- in place since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the ensuing Gulf War in 1991 -- only if inspectors can verify that Iraq has dismantled all its weapons of mass destruction. In an editorial this month in a state-run newspaper, Iraq again denied it has or is developing such weapons.

RESPONSE TO BUSH'S SPEECH: "This statement of President Bush is stupid and a statement that does not befit the leader of the biggest state in the world," Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said Wednesday.