Wyverald

The article says this:

> von Zweigbergk will continue to be a core maintainer of JJ as an open source project under the Apache 2.0 license.

God forbid an article presents all the evidence from all parties and asks you to reach a conclusion by yourself...

Sorry for the snark. But I genuinely think the way they did this was perfect.

In American English, "insure" can also mean "to make sure" as in "ensure", in additional to meaning "to take out insurance for".

Just noting that the phrasing "readily available alternatives" by itself is slightly ambiguous: it could be read as subsetting ("the alternatives that are readily available") or just attributive ("the alternatives, which are readily available").

>> I also am wearing machine-fabricated clothing and enjoying a host of other products of automation.

> I'm not really a fan of the "you criticize society yet you participate in it" argument.

It seems to me that GP is merely recognizing the parts of technological advance that they do find enjoyable. That's rather far from the "I am very intelligent" comic you're referencing.

> The very least you can do is not impede those trying to fight for those futures if you can't/don't want to fight yourself.

Just noting that GP simply voiced their opinion, which IMHO does not constitute "impedance" of those trying to fight for those futures.

Why put it above the _keyboard_, though? what you described sounds just like the macOS menu bar, but perhaps a bit more customizable. Why not just do that (make the menu bar more customizable)?

As a user of the touch bar, I _hated_ having to look down from the screen, and move my hands away from the keyboard home row / touchpad area, _all the way up_ to the touchbar area to finally use it. It completely breaks the flow every single time. I don't think just inserting physical Fn keys beneath it would have won me over at all.

I'm not familiar with the stream deck, haven't even heard of it until just now.

That was a sensible chuckle indeed... but then it also made me realize that grabbing things IRL _moves_ them, not _resizes_ them. Nothing IRL really resizes.

So while it makes a lot of sense to grab inside the object to move it, IMO it actually makes less sense to grab _inside_ the object to resize it. (Imagine the reverse argument -- IRL you can actually grab the middle of the plate to move it, but if grabbing the middle of the window resized it, that would also be very bad.)

I've been trained to grab the edge to resize windows. So I wouldn't try to reach so far inside the rounded rectangle as OP, although it doesn't invalidate their entire argument.

Very much agree. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug. Not saying GP's opinion was pure nostalgia, but a lot of people certainly selectively remember only the good parts as they complain about the now.

Curious why you liked it so much. Removing the fn keys was a big no-no, yes, but also it was just located in a place I'm never going to look at. So why do you think it would've been a hit feature?

FWIW, this is the least effective way to disagree with someone on the internet. Everyone knows it, even yourself.

(snark aside -- either say _why_ you disagree, or just don't engage at all if you think it's a troll.)

how ever did you reach that conclusion? For 1, his tweet literally says "That, of course, is DISGUSTING and even before yesterday’s fine we had multiple legal challenges pending against the underlying scheme." 2 is something that happens behind the doors, and it's rather uncharitable to just assume he skipped it.

I'm a total noob here, but just pointing out that Omniscience Index is roughly "Accuracy - Hallucination Rate". So it simply means that their Accuracy was very high.

> In the Hallucination Rate vs. AA-Omniscience Index chart, it’s not in the most desirable quadrant

This doesn't mean much. As long as Gemini 3 has a high hallucination rate (higher than at least 50% others), it's not going to be in the most desirable quadrant by definition.

For example, let's say a model answers 99 out of 100 questions correctly. The 1 wrong answer it produces is a hallucination (i.e. confidently wrong). This amazing model would have a 100% hallucination rate as defined here, and thus not be in the most desirable quadrant. But it should still have a very high Omniscience Index.