Can you spoil it for me, because I read it to the end and saw no mention of such a project. Unless you are referring to the DIY approach the article suggests.
It was an offhand 20 words out of a 5000 word article and a very pertinent example. I guess the question is, why were you not bothered by the negative opinion about instant coffee or particleboard or malls or Tinder or McNuggets, but hearing anything negative about LLMs is worth singling out to complain about?
The article boils down (pun intended) to, “you already accept all these things which I am glossing as basically instant mashed potatoes, so you should also accept LLMs.”
That’s why they not-so-subtly start calling them IMPs when they introduce the “abstracted version.”
It’s not merely an example. It’s the thesis of the article.
EDIT: Out of perversity, I skimmed the comments. The audience of Astral Codex Ten seems to share this interpretation, for whatever that’s worth.
To be fair, Windows 8 only came out in 2012, so they haven't had that much time to finish the settings migration. But they're making good progress. If they keep up this pace of moving 2 settings per month, they should be able to finish by 2053.
Lying potentially opens up fraud angles if they are soliciting or receiving something of value. Maybe false advertising even they are giving it away for free. A lot of this will depend on who has jurisdiction
> Thank you to the Forgejo contributors who helped us with our issues switching to the platform, as well as the Codeberg folks who worked with us on the migration
I'd love to see a writeup about these problems/solutions at some point.
It's not based on cryptocurrency, there are just extra features that use it. Unstoppable domains is an optional feature. You don't need to visit them, but it gives value to people by letting them actually own their domain instead of leasing it from ICANN. Viewing ads to earn BAT is an optional feature. As I mentioned ad blocking is built in so you can have it show no ads if you want.
Reading between the lines, it seems like Google is playing a bit of chess here. Reminds me of the Beeper Mini stunt, except this time by a trillion-dollar company they can't just sweep under the rug.
> we welcome the opportunity to work with Apple to enable “Contacts Only” mode in the future.
> I applaud the effort to open more secure information sharing between platforms and encourage Google and Apple to work together more on this.
That's how it reads to me. They made a big deal during the Pixel 10 launch to talk about Apple/iOS features, and switching from iPhone to Pixel. They called the blue/green bubbles childish, and they put Magasafe in the Pixel and explicitly said "you can use all your Apple accessories."
Google is going hard after iPhone users by trying to punch holes in Apple's walled garden anytime they can. AirDrop is another hole in the wall, as was Magsafe, and RCS.
If Google can get other AWDL features working between macOS and Android, particularly universal clipboard and universal control, I'd seriously consider switching back to Android after many, many years on iOS purely for the ecosystem integration. iMessage doesn't bother me, but I use AirDrop, AirPods auto switching on calls, and universal clipboard daily and those are all blockers for my considering a switch.
I would consider the first one to be an ad, but you could disable it and it seems to have only rolled out to a small number of users for a short period of time because it's hard to find many instances of this existing. It's certainlynot on my machone. Yet, you'll probably still see people complain about this. The windows team can't remove something they already have.
The second I would not consider an ad, but an upsell.
An upsell is a FUCKING AD and has no business existing, period.
Nothing should appear on a user's screen that doesn't add value for what the user is trying to get done. This is really, really simple. If you are Microsoft, and you are thinking about whether something should appear on the screen, you should be thinking "Does this advance the user's goals?". If you are instead thinking "Does this advance Microsoft's goals?", then you are doing it wrong.
The same applies to automagically configuring everything to use the cloud (good for Microsoft, usually bad for the user). And, as a special case of that, requiring the user to use a cloud-based account to log into their own local computer.
Cloud storage, and office suite software, does add value to what users are trying to get done with their computer.
The definition of ad you are using is not the common usage. For example if someone asked if ChatGPT had ads they would most likely say no, despite it upselling the subscription.
> I can send multiple queries over a single TCP connection and receive multiple responses over the same single TCP single connection, out of order. No blocking.
You're missing the point. You have one TCP connection, and the sever sends you response1 and then response2. Now if response1 gets lost or delayed due to network conditions, you must wait for response1 to be retransmitted before you can read response2. That is blocking, no way around it. It has nothing to do with advertising(?), and the other protocols mentioned don't have this drawback.
I work on an application that does a lot of high frequency networking in a tcp like custom framework. Our protocol guarantees ordering per “channel” so you can send requesr1 on channel 1 and request2 on channel 2 and receive the responses in any order. (But if you send request 1 and then request 2 on the same channel you’ll get them back in order)
It’s a trade off, and there’s a surprising amount of application code involved on the receiving side in the application waiting for state to be updated on both channels. I definitely prefer it, but it’s not without its tradeoffs.
reply