You can find forum and Reddit posts going back 15-20 years of people attempting to remove the GIL, Guido van Rossum just made the requirement that single core performance cannot be hurt by removing it, this made ever previous attempt fail in the end
Reading was a form of connecting with someone. Their opinions are bound to be flawed, everyone's are - but they're still the thoughts and words of a person.
This is no longer the case. Thus, the human factor is gone and this reduces the experience to some of us, me included.
This is exactly what’s at stake. I heard an artist say one time that he’d rather listen to Bob Dylan miss a note than listen to a song that had all the imperfections engineered out of it.
They're not connecting to the autotune, but to the artist. People have a lot of opinions about Taylor Swift's music but "not being personal enough" is definitely not a common one.
If you wanna advocate for unplugged music being more gratifying, I don't disagree, but acting like the autotune is what people are getting out of Taylor Swift songs is goofy.
I have no idea about Taylor Swift so I'll ask in general: can't we have a human showing an autotuned personality? Like, you are what you are in private, but in interviews you focus on things suggested by your AI conselor, your lyrics are fine tuned by AI, all this to show a better marketable personality? Maybe that's the autotune we should worry about. Again, nothing new (looking at you, Village People) but nowadays the potential powered by AI is many orders of magnitude higher... you could say yes only until the fans catch wind of it, true, but by that time the next figure shows up and so on. Not sure where this arms escalation can lead us. Because also acceptance levels are shifting, so what we reject today as unacceptable lies could be fine tomorrow, look already at the AI influencers doing a decent job while overtly fake.
I’m convinced it’s already being done, or at least played with. Lots of public figures only speak through a teleprompter. It would be easy to put a fine tuned LLM on the other side of that teleprompter where even unscripted questions can be met with scripted answers.
I think the key thing here is equating trust and truth. I trust my dog, a lot, more than most humans frankly. She has some of my highest levels of trust attainable, yet I don’t exactly equate her actions with truth. She often barks when there’s no one at the door or at false threats she doesn’t know aren’t real threats and so on. But I trust she believes it 100% and thinks she’s helping me 100%.
What I think OP was saying and I agree with is that connection, that knowing no matter what was said or how flawed or what motive someone had I trusted there was a human producing the words. I could guess and reasons the other factors away. Now I don’t always know if that is the case.
If you’ve ever played a multiplayer game, most of the enjoyable experience for me is playing other humans. We’ve had good game AIs in many domains for years, sometimes difficult to distinguish from humans, but I always lost interest if I didn’t know I was in fact playing and connecting with another human. If it’s just some automated system I could do that any hour of the day as much as I want but it lacked the human connection element, the flaws, the emotion, the connection. If you can reproduce that then maybe it would be enjoyable but that sort of substance has meaning to many.
It’s interesting to see a calculator quickly spit out correct complex arithmetic but when you see a human do it, it’s more impressive or at least interesting, because you know the natural capability is lower and that they’re flawed just like you are.
I'm not sure I can agree with that, because historically speaking would include the time we had nobility. And in that time period, having money would not provide you with power, as nobles were beyond the law and could simply cease it for themselves.
I don't think that's a nitpick, that kinda voids their point entirely.
Apple is a lot worse then most of their users believe - but even at their worst, they're leagues more privacy focused and less invasive then Google, Facebook and Microsoft are.
But they're still getting worse every year, and the time when they were actually torchbearers for privacy have slowly faded over the years as MBAs have strengthened their hold on the company and Steve Jobs influence waned.
It's still of value to have companies that have different incentives even if they will still try to prey on you, if only because you get to spread your digital footprint among competing companies rather than allies.
Going back to Apple, their stance on privacy is more geared towards their internal consumption (abuse?) than towards privacy violation-as-a-service for sale. That's not great but I'll take anything I can get.
I know what I'm sharing with Apple is up for grabs by them to use "against" me. And I know the same is true for Google of Facebook, so no real difference here. The problem is the next level, where what I share with someone else is up for grabs by Google or Facebook, or the other way around. This huge web of data collection and sharing is the big problem, not the posts that I'm volunteering to give to FB or the emails I choose to host with Google.
In other words, when you talk to me alone you choose to give me the information, you're aware I will use it in some way to shape my actions. If you tell me your phone broke, I'll offer to sell you my spare, and you won't turn red that I used the info. But if a stranger shows up at your door a minute later to sell you a phone we're suddenly having a different conversation. Same if you go to a pharmacy on the other side of town to buy some medication and the moment you make the payment I send you a text offering my regrets for your illness.
"A lot worse" can mean very different things if you talk in relative or absolute terms, or if you think some practices are just as bad as others.
I have a simple (simplistic maybe) way of ranking the tech giants for privacy: how much of their revenue is ads. Facebook is the worst (98% I believe), followed by google (~90% last time I checked). Apple is in the “least worst” category by this metric for now, but they are slipping.
It reeks of the same "both sides"-ing going on in US politics right now. I have an iPhone, and I refuse to install any Google or Meta apps. Am I being tracked? Of course. Is it still an order of magnitude less tracking than the former companies? I'd wager it is.
Don't get me wrong. Apple definitely has problems. But the thread was specifically about facebook and ad tracking networks. And to conflate different arguments that have nothing to do with tracking into just "Apple Bad" lacks a lot of nuance.
The problem with ad companies is not that they show ads. But that they are trying to paint a perfect picture of you to sell you stuff. And they are painting that picture by spying on you and your peers.
I hope that you can see the difference between spying on your users and selling that data to advertisers and using telemetry in some product. If you ever worked in software you will know that having telemetry can lead to massive improvements in the product. That said, that data has to be confined to the applicable use case and has to be anonymized.
If you really think there is no difference between ad tracking and telemetry you are right. Apple is a lot worse than people think, but better than Google/Facebook.
But if we are talking just about ads, than Apple is definitely not worse than people think. Because they hardly even have an ad network and when they ask you if you want to be tracked you can just select "No".
Apples main advertisements are the app store placements.
You're vastly underestimating the significance of that, as this is personalized too. It's also been shown that you cannot actually opt out of everything, only some things.
At the end of the day, I still consider my Apple devices to be less intrusive then the android and Windows devices I use, but you seem to have an outdated view of Apple's business practices - at least from my perspective
Sure, you could still use a css framework, but you really don't need to once you're using any frontend library.
Each component comes with it's own styles, that makes the css framework redundant, as a component library gives you a better development experience with the same effect.
Add a few global vars for theme colorings, default spacing etc and it becomes pretty straightforward to maintain a coherent UI even across repositories/teams (or distribute a tailwind config,works even better imo)
That’s assuming they are using a component library that has a common system for its styles. If their end result was an inconsistent UI, it doesn’t sound like they were. They could have been making their own components, or mixing component libraries, with inconsistent styles, based on whatever the first search result was for their need.
Apple specifically wants that you cannot use non-apple displays by artificially worsening the experience for the user while strengthening the illusion that Apple's hardware looks better - even though the only reason it does is because Apple themselves made sure to make other displays look unnecessarily bad.
It's hilarious there are people that actually think this is totally okay and not just plain anti-competitive with just enough plausible deniability to get away with it
In a few more words: not at all, not even slightly.
To explain briefly:
> Apple specifically wants that you cannot use non-apple displays
No. Apple does not make or sell or offer non-HD displays and has not done for over a decade. Apple mainly sells phones and laptops with built-in hiDPI screens. Desktop computers that use external screens are a small part of its range, and it sells its own very high-quality screens for those.
Because font antialiasing is pointless on a hiDPI screen, and it only offers hiDPI screens, it removed antialiasing from its OSes.
However, the kit does still support old screens and you are free to use them. The antialiasing feature is gone, but to my (not very strong) eyesight it doesn't matter and stuff looks fine.
> artificially worsening the experience for the user
No. This is paranoia.
> It's hilarious there are people that actually think this is totally okay
People think it's okay because your interpretation is paranoid.
> not just plain anti-competitive
How is REMOVING features anti-competitive? In what universe does taking something out of your products hurt your competition? That is absurd.
> How is REMOVING features anti-competitive? In what universe does taking something out of your products hurt your competition? That is absurd.
You're unironically arguing that EEE isn't anti competitive?
The whole strategy is about removing support/features at the right time when users cannot realistically leave, putting the nail in the competitors coffin.
Simply put:
1. initial product supports both equally
2. People start using your product
3. Competitors product work less well
4. People will use the better working product. Despite the fact that the downgrade in quality is artificial.
Or is it only anti-competitive if Microsoft does it, Apple being the last bastion of healthy competition on the market, with groundbreaking examples like the AppStore and the green/blue bubbles in their chat app?
I get it for things you do on the side to broaden your horizon, but how often do you actually need to Google things for your day job?
Idk, of the top of my head, I can't even remember the last time exactly. It's definitely >6 month ago.
Maybe that's the reason some people are so enthusiastic about it? They just didn't really know the tools they're using yet. Which is normal I guess, everyone starts at some point.
> to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human.
The original idea was in the context of a discussion, but since the current LLM craze we've re-contextualized this test to online boards on which half the participants barely even speak the language.
In this context, gpt3 was beyond the turing test already, simply because the people aren't able to convey themselves either.
And whoever thinks they're able to detect gpt4 and beyond on the Internet is lying to themselves. You can detect the use if you know the user, otherwise the only reason why you'd convince yourself to have that ability is because you never find out about all the false positives you had.
I find it hilarious that repeat scammers like Logan Paul have a growing audience.
Same with the shit Mr Beast pulls. Viewers just don't care, the dumber and more extreme the content is, the bigger the audience ultimately becomes.
It was the same with Linus Tech Tips before, completely bogus and amature opinions dressed up by tech bros with lots of noise and people actually watch it. While he lost some of his audience last year on his narcissistic rant, his views seem to have mostly recovered by now.
Truly mind blowing.
They're all paid advertisements, paid for by the producer of the gadget they're presenting.
The ads are generally made by people that have about 30 minutes to form their opinion on the product, and have very little industry experience. (And if they had, they'd quickly leave considering how massively underpaid the staff reportedly is)
But don't take my word, there was a bit of coverage last year after Linus previously mentioned narcissistic rant on the WAN show, where he said only his team is producing benchmarks without reusing previous runs. Which is false, and shows that he's probably the only channel that entertains the idea of doing that for more profit (but the last post is speculation by me)
> At that scale, it would take years to get fixed without forcing it like this.
But it also might not take years. The point of responsible disclosure is to give them the opportunity. If they don't take it, fine - that's now on them.
Instead this guy is committing fraud with actual financial damages (wasted food) and then sharing how others can commit the same fraud on a massive scale, potentially causing more damage. This is now on him and Dotpe, not Dotpe alone.
Is that legally true? The legal risk of having published this without responsible disclosure vanishes if the conventional period of opportunity is ignored? That smells fishy.
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not speaking to the legality of this. Legality is not the only thing that matters.
If you publish an exploit without at least making an attempt to fix it, and someone follows you and exploits it, then there's a direct moral line between you and that exploitation. They more likely than not wouldn't have exploited it without you putting that published info in their path. It's now on you, them and the company, morally. Any damages that result from this interaction are because you and the company enabled them to happen.
That's different to someone else stumbling on it and exploiting it. That's purely on the company and the exploiter.
You can find forum and Reddit posts going back 15-20 years of people attempting to remove the GIL, Guido van Rossum just made the requirement that single core performance cannot be hurt by removing it, this made ever previous attempt fail in the end
I.e. https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=214235
reply