AlexanderTheGr8

To add on: a 3% stock shift means that the search-engine deal was worth >=3% of the stock. That is massive free cashflow. In 2022, Google paid Apple $20B (full profit bec negligible costs) while Apple's total profit was around $100B. 20% of Apple's total profit came from Google's search deal. Based on this, I am sure the stock price worth would be much higher than 3% (actual numbers are complicated because stock price accounts for future growth of things).

Apple stock is up 3%, strongly implying that this ruling is good for Apple as well. That is in contradiction to a lot of folks saying that this ruling means Google won't have to pay Apple. While the terms of the deal with Apple will likely change, based on the stock price increase, Apple will likely end up with a different deal (if not better).

Another thing to note, contrary to some comments, is that Google is still allowed to make a deal with Apple to be the default search engine, but with extra rules.

``` Google also would be permitted to pay Browser Developers, including Apple, to set Search as the default GSE, so long as the Browser Developer (1) can promote other GSEs and (2) is permitted to set a different GSE on different operating system versions or in a privacy mode and makes changes, if desired, on an annual basis. ```

Off-topic to the comments here, I am impressed by how the poster has described their issue so eloquently!

They mentioned 6 reasons for why they have an issue with the banner : each of the 6 is a valid concern and put very eloquently and clearly.

I suppose I only noticed this because I am used to speaking/writing/reading/listening mid-quality English in day-to-day life as a programmer.

I followed this case when it happened. It was $16M at the time, not sure how it became $65M now. I suppose it doesn't matter - any number above $100k probably grants the same punishment*

Interesting side-note : the people he took/stole from - they offered him 10% if he returned the rest. He said no in a tweet trolling them.

Contrary to the opinions in this thread, I think he was smart to run away. Remember that he did this from Canada, not the US. Countries don't have the same extradition treaties with Canada that they do with US.

If he had stayed, he would almost certainly be convicted. No court can possibly understand "code is law". Courts' job is only to interpret the law, not make the law. And the law was not written for crypto. You cannot fit a square in a circle without distortion.

What I think would have happened is the courts, rather than introducing novel precedent, would have preferred to just rely on existing case law and declare him a criminal.

Another interesting side-note : the judge presiding the case made a public comment asking the guy to come back to Canada promising him a fair trial. The guy didn't show up - maybe he didn't receive the message.

Overall, even with the benefit of hindsight, we still can't be sure if he was smart to exploit this or not. Forced to live in a few countries but with a lot of money.

* It's because (1) laws were designed when numbers were lower (no one had $16M to steal); (2) humans can't visualize big numbers (individually, $16M is just as big as $65M in my head)

Incredible coincidence. I was making a new tab extension for myself today. Well, more accurately, I was making ChatGPT and Claude to make a new tab extension for me. Wonder if this is frequency bias or just an incredible coincidence.

I think Chrome should include a way for users to customize their home page a lot more - with custom greetings, calendar, tasks, etc integration.

> Oh right, it's the year of the fully autonomous car! Or was it last year? Or 2016?

Just because CEOs have been hyping this tech up to raise valuations doesn't mean it will never happen. They said the same about landing rockets - now, it's a regular thing.

It's pretty clear that driverless is coming - exact timeline is unclear. Whether in 3 years, 5 years, or a decade, but it's coming.

> Uber or Lyft are more convenient for the customer

Gross understatement!

1) You can find a cab wherever (almost) and whenever (24x7) - you don't have to hail a cab for minutes/hours (even worse was not knowing when/if the cab would even arrive).

2) Much safer. Emergency support + seeing the route on GPS (can see the path on the driver's uber app) + rating system.

3) Better behaviour, enforced by rating system. Yes, it's not perfect, but much much better than cabs. Cab drivers were regularly abusive, knowing there were no repurcussions. Unfortunately, humans only behave when there's consequences.

4) No scamming vulnerable un-informed people. Cabs were known for scamming foreigners or un-informed people. I can point out a few more things. Calling it `more convenient` is a massive understatement.

> but the drivers are being abused by Uber or Lyft. Which is less than ideal.

This can be fixed by regulation. Just because a new technology brought a new problem, that doesn't mean we should discard the technology and go to its worse predecessor. Remember : there is a reason the new technology took over its predecessor.

I think we can have both : the benefits of digital ride-share + good regulation for drivers to ensure they can maintain their livelihood.

PS : that's until driverless waymo/tesla take over everything...

I have faced this exact problem with Canadian govt forms. Evince doesn't support them. They are so specific about only adobe acrobat to fill out the forms. I can open them in firefox but can't update them properly The only option is to use my barely hanging on 10-yr old windows machine.

Let's hope that eventually they move on to a simpler web form.

I see a bunch of comments about whether gambling should be banned or not. But what about enforcement : can you ban it?

Nowadays, gambling is on 2 fronts : in-person and online. I am not sure about % distribution between them but I suspect online is not too small. In-person gambling operations should be fairly easy to ban.

But online is a different problem because there will always be some country where gambling websites are legal.

And what's stopping gamblers from bypassing online restrictions (VPNs, cryptocurrencies, etc)?

I think an un-enforceable law holds no value and shows naive idealism. I agree that banning gambling would save the in-person gamblers but eventually, we risk them converting to online gamblers. (If vast majority of gambling is in-person, then maybe it's worth it).

It's an interesting coincidence that gambling laws are becoming more permissive in most places now that online gambling is becoming more prevalent. Another comment wonderfully put it as a possible prisoners dilemma. If place#1 bans gambling, gamblers from that place would go to place#2 that has gambling : now place#1 has both gamblers and less-tax-revenue while place#2 has same gamblers but more-tax-revenue.

A text-to-speech (TTS) model. Most good TTS models are closed-source. I intend on making this one open-source.

All the decent open-source ones are fairly basic with limited fine tuning and no alignment (RLHF).

I plan on adding those things. Although I am not sure if there will be any demand for it. Plus, there's a decent chance meta will make llama 4 speech output making this one obsolete.

I have often wondered : Why don't they attach a transponder on each athlete's center-of-chest (using some objective definition) and use that to time each athlete? That can be much much more accurate than any camera.

We can still use cameras for visual confirmation but transponders are much more accurate than any camera.

> those able to decode the still-military-only encrypted signals

How? I was under the impression that military-only signal was encrypted. And if someone breaks that encrpytion, blame should go to the poor handling of encryption rather than the person breaking it? Analogy : if you leave a classified document on the train and a passenger reads it, whose fault is it?

I never really thought of that. That's a pretty interesting restriction. Although any party with access to warheads that can fly 1000+ mph probably can bypass the GPS restriction, no?

Can you explain what you mean by that? The only thing I can think of is that GPS has 2 modes : one civilian and other military use. But military use-case uses encryption so civilians can't use that mode anyway.

Nice reverse engineering! As a hacky way for the non-tech-savvy, couldn't you use a temp account to create ticketmaster account and then buy the ticket and then sell the temp account information to bypass their rules?

This reverse-engineering also breaks if ticketmaster forces venue staff to only scan if the barcode is in the ticketmaster app. Unless you create a lookalike app to trick the staffers.