saynay

Any company could do something extremely user-hostile at any point, so this isn't really a compelling argument?

Do you have any argument for why they would add it back?

A simple law stating that laundering data through an LLM does not constitute "fair use", that the outputs can be subject to copyright claims of the original authors, and that the outputs themselves do not qualify for copyright protections would go a long way.

It wouldn't kill the technology but it would make people more cautious in their use of it, which I think is needed right now.

AI certainly is the shiny new hammer, and it is tempting to see the world as nails.

Traditional methods might not be perfect, but they also easily fit in the memory of even low power devices. Perhaps it isn't a problem worth burning a dollar of tokens for every spelling mistake.

Haven't they hemorrhaged a lot of the founding talent in the years since? Now it is full of ex-Meta ad-tech people trying to find a way to make it actually turn a profit.

It was pretty obvious he was wanting to enter a conflict with someone, and was mostly held back in his first term by the actual professionals in his cabinet at that time. But the guy wanted a military parade with tanks rolling through DC on his birthday, wanted to nuke a hurricane, and forcibly annex Greenland. It isn't really surprising that once he replaced the sane people with sycophants, he would start something.

Claude folks proudly claim to have Claude effectively writing itself. The CEO claims it will read an issue and automatically write a fix, tests, commit and submit a PR for it.

I would probably say that both the city and the cop should, independently, be liable. Given the position of authority the city provides, it is ultimately responsible to hire and properly train people who will use that authority well, while the individual is also responsible for their own actions.

> But this makes the language feel like Python

From what I remember of a presentation they had on how and why the made Go, this is no coincidence. They had a lot of Python glue code at Google, but had issues running it in production due to mismatched library dependencies, typing bugs, etc. So they made Go to be easy to adopt their Python code to (and especially get the people writing that code to switch), while addressing the specific production issues they faced.

I wonder if we just don't have many of these types of satellites in a polar orbit, since we don't have as big a need for that type of imagery for the poles?

On the other hand, I had the misfortune of having a hardware failure on one of my Hetzner servers. They got a replacement harddrive in fairly quickly, but still complete data loss on that server, so I had to rebuild it from scratch.

This was extra painful, because I wasn't using one of the OS that is blessed by Hetzner, so it requires a remote install. Remote installs require a system that can run their Java web plugin, and that have a stable and fast enough connection to not time out. The only way I have reliably gotten them to work is by having an ancient Linux VM that was also running in Hetzner, and had the oldest Firefox version I could find that still supported Java in the browser.

My fault for trying to use what they provide in a way that is outside their intended use, and props to them for letting me do it anyway.

> means you can stop paying $1000+/month to someone who is already a millionaire, that's still a savings even if it adds $20 in overhead.

Only if these hypothetical millionaires you are stopping make up more than 1/50 of the people you are means-testing. You are not only paying for those who fail the means-test, but for all those who are passing it.

Boo... I was worried that might be the case looking at the renders.

The looks are what they are, but if that wide shelf will mean the phone doesn't wobble when placed on a table, that is a good usability improvement. One of the small things I missed when moving from a Pixel 6 to an iPhone was the ability to not feel compelled to pick it up in order to use it.

I largely agree, but when we hold phones it is generally by the side without the camera. That means that this phone will feel smaller in the hand, which could be a very effective marketing gimmick to upsell people from the base iPhone.

It isn't as bad as some practices, for sure. The question is how likely are the 'upgrades' actually upgrading anything for the user? Will the extra camera on the Pro be $100 of utility for the user over the lifetime of the device? Or are they using the uncertainty that the user _might_ get a use out of that camera to push to a higher model.

It seems mostly an exercise in price discrimination. You always have a slightly higher price point, and some extra functionality to justify it, and the customer will likely push themselves up to the maximum they are willing to spend instead of settling on the cheapest option that meets their needs.