I want to build my own agents so I can my private domain specific awareness in the coding environment: PRDs, product docs, API docs, business goals, etc. I'm assuming I could point this to any API compatible endpoint and build my own agents?
Downvoted for stating the obvious? Did anyone read the article?
> On Saturday morning, Tan apologized about the death wish in a subsequent post, saying he was simply referencing a lyric in Tupac’s “Hit ‘Em Up,” but that it “wasn’t a good call” regardless. The notorious diss track famously added fuel to the fire of East Coast-West Coast rap rivalry, leading to Tupac’s murder in a drive-by shooting just three months after its release.
The distinction you make would be significant if that article was about Tupac and his justification or lack thereof in writing the lyrics, but it is completely immaterial to an article where what is relevant is Tan and his reference to the lyrics.
The article’s central claim is that to quote these lyrics is to “wish death” on the people you’re naming. The context leads me to the exact opposite interpretation: it’s a righteous condemnation of others for wishing death on you.
> The article’s central claim is that to quote these lyrics is to “wish death” on the people you’re naming. The context leads me to the exact opposite interpretation:
It leads me to the conclusion that the wish in the original lyrics was understandable and provoked, not that it wasn't literally what it says. Which certainly affects the view of Tupac writing and performing it, but not so much that of Tan referencing it.
I'm don't mean to defend Tan here, he already apologized. I'm simply reiterating that the article doesn't come close to saying what I said: Tann was obviously quoting Tupac, and wasn't just using that as a post-hoc excuse for the choice of words.
> "Detroit's police chief said their facial recognition technology, when used alone, fails 96% of the time, Insider previously reported."
When it fails 96% of the time, are they given a hundred possible matches to scroll through? If so, that's concerning to the majority of people showing up without any affiliation to a crime.
I recently bought an air purifier for my house and it's constantly red when used in living room that has outside windows. In other words, air quality around my house is constantly bad. By the end i moved it to an isolated room where at least we can enjoy clean air there.
What city? It is too generic to say "Southeast Asia". Most of it is rural. And what is meant by "unhealthy"? What measurements? I cannot believe that 90% of days were unhealthy. Why? Rainy season is never polluted -- I know from experience in Hongkong and Singapore. Once a day or more, you get a huge downpour that takes most pollution out of the air. (This is partly why Seattle fairs very well in clean air measurements... it rains so damn much. Scottish cities, too.)
Seattle's air pollution quality is so low because there's a vast ocean separating the Seattleites from the manufacturing that supplies it with new phones, appliances, furniture, clothing, building materials and just about everything from the source of the pollution.
Rain is nice, but that has very little to do with it.
The growth in moat of these countries is up so much they cant burn enough coal to keep from brown outs.
Outsourced pollution.
If you need data, just peak at a global air pollution map. Dive into the historical metrics.
This company pretends it has the moral high ground, but like most of corporate America, they always have an eye on Chinese profits. America's future is at stake and we won't wake up until it's too late.
It reads to me like Apple is warning suppliers that it's parts may not get to factories in China if it does not comply with Chinese law.
You would like Apple to... stop importing parts from Taiwan to China? That doesn't seem right, it would hurt Taiwan. Stop manufacturing in China? That's... ambitious. Ignore the situation and just accept assembly lines being halted because of lack of parts stopped at border? Other?
I don't totally see how America's future is at stake requiring current escalations to challenges to China's long-standing statement that Taiwan is part of china. You think America may cease to exist unless the government chooses right now to change their policy and refuse to let China maintain this fiction? And that private corporations start challenging it too even before the government does? Or else America may cease to exist?
Just curious, I would like to learn more about what you're looking for here. I'm curious if you are hoping for a shooting war between the US and China, if you think that would be good for "America's future"?
> Stop manufacturing in China? That's... ambitious.
Apple's profit margins are so high that they'd probably still be positive even if they did this without raising prices at all. (Remember nobody's saying they should have to move manufacturing to the US. There are plenty of countries with low labor costs that are less evil than China.)
Apple has repeatedly said that it’s not China’s cheaper labor. They don’t have as cheap labor anymore, especially compared to India, Vietnam, Philippines, etc. they say it’s because of the complex specialized knowledge of suppliers around Shenzhen and I’m inclined to believe them. You can choose to not trust them.
> This company pretends it has the moral high ground, but like most of corporate America, they always have an eye on Chinese profits.
To be fair, it's not fair to use this as an occasion for Apple bashing or America bashing.
The whole Taiwan thing goes much deeper. For example, if you look at ISO3166, the country code standard.
If you look up Taiwan in ISO3166[1], you will see it listed as "Taiwan (Province of China)".
So, if a supposedly neutral international body sees it fit to maintain the link, then what hope have you got for individual countries or their companies ?
Apparently it's Kissinger's fault (with the secret treaty with China). From then on UN stopped recognizing Taiwan and gave the seat to China. See this video at 16min mark [1]
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5POKVD8XMg).
Just a note, the ISO standard and the United Nations are intrinsically linked. A country can only enter ISO 3166-1 if it appears in the United Nations Terminology Bulletin 'Country Names'. And I suppose one could argue the UN is not neutral.
Apparently, People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) are in agreement that there's only one China. They differ on which government is legitimate.
It's worth noting that in the ROC (Taiwan) that position is losing popularity, and since about 2007 they seem to be moving towards becoming an independent nation that claims only the island of Taiwan. It's a politically difficult topic however, which is why no name change happened so far.
> So, if a supposedly neutral international body sees it fit to maintain the link, then what hope have you got for individual countries or their companies ?
Neutrality in politics doesn't refer to a Platonic ideal where the existence of a conflict doesn't affect you in any way. Neutrality is a pragmatic message: "I understand you two have a conflict, I'm not going to take it upon myself to solve it, but I'd like to operate here regardless".
One option is of course to say that nobody should be neutral in the conflict between China and Taiwan, but the obvious objection is that Taiwan does not want this. Taiwan's economic links with the mainland are enormous and it's absolutely routine for Taiwanese businesses to export to China or do business in China under Chinese regulations. (For example, you may be familiar with Foxconn, a Taiwanese company with over a million Chinese employees.)
I don't know why you're over-complicating this. The body that decided on that terminology didn't even invite Taiwan to participate. The terminology was chosen at the behest of China. That body was obviously not neutral.
Once again you're over-complicated this. The organization could have invited Taiwan to participate and asked them what they'd like to be called. That would certainly satisfy those questioning the organization's neutrality.
Allowing the PRC to decide what the lands they govern are called and allowing the ROC to decide that the lands they govern are called is _obviously_ more neutral than allowing either the PRC or the ROC to make the decision for both sides. Taking the PRC’s side (as that committee did) or the ROC’s side is basically the definition of “not neutral”.
China does need to be “satisfied” for it to be neutral.
> gave us they cheaper products we so desired by offshoring
This is kind of silly to blame average people on the street for buying something cheaper that shows up in their local stores. This is all on the government (both parties), and large corporations for pushing this. People didn't "want" NAFTA, slave labor, etc.
I think it's only reasonable to place blame on the population if you figure elected officials are representative of their constituents, and that the population has a responsibility to make sure it stays that way.
Simultaneously you could make a pretty good case going the other way, or that we're well past that point.
I mean what are they supposed to do? Choose your battles. If your home country says Taiwan is part of China the easiest path with the least resistance is to label stuff from Taiwan as “made in china”.
Of all the fights Apple can choose to pick, it seems like this one just isn’t worth it. Much better they pick fights about police having the ability to unlock phones or something.
Choose your battles. Let some shoe company pick that battle or something…
I disagree, Apple is acting exactly as it claims are its ethics, here. The part that needs discussion is how it prioritizes adhering to laws versus less specifically defined ethical values.
In my view, China acts abusively in many ways. And the country is currently important to modern global manufacturing.
In my understanding changing where a physical product company manufactures everything is horrifically difficult.
Apple very discretely talks about the ethical standards that it adheres to:
>Change is typically hard, in my understanding of life, and changing where a physical product company manufactures everything is horrifically difficult.
Yes, but if any company has the money and the power to make those changes happen, it's Apple.
I don't think Apple is overtly advertising any morality in it's policies.
I think that's something that we have to do as shareholders of Apple. Shareholders and customers. We have to say, "Hey we don't like how your company is from our moral perspective. Please change your policies so that they conform to our morality."
Not really. Pretty much every iPhone sold everywhere is manufactured in China, and they all use chips from Taiwan.
There is no Apple without China. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals, working in Chinese-jurisdiction factories, produce Apple's products. Without the full consent and cooperation of the Chinese government, there are no Apple products. Full stop.
The United States government has always had a One-China policy, regardless of which party is in power. Why is this on Apple? Be mad at your elected leaders if you don't like it.
100% of Apple's important chips depend on Taiwan continuing to be Taiwan (and TSMC continuing to be TSMC).
~100% of Apple's manufacturing depends on China continuing to permit hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals in Chinese factories (Foxconn's plants in Zhengzhou and elsewhere) building Apple products.
I'm not sure what you mean by "knuckle under" in this context, but Apple is, today, wholly dependent upon Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturing (for chips, and assembly, respectively).
If there is a war between China and Taiwan, or China and the US, Apple stands to lose the most of any single organization, I think.
Damn. “Any single organization” is a hell of a qualifier. I mean if there was some war every company that builds physical shit would get fucked. But I’m hard pressed to think of any other single org that would be more fucked.
Would that be true based on market cap? Cause I’m sure countless auto manufacturers, airplane manufacturers, elevator manufacturers, consumer goods manufacturers, and god knows what else would be equally fucked. But by market cap none of them would be as fucked as Apple.
Yes, they are dependent on China and Taiwan, but they will knuckle under to the point to which the company is seriously disrupted if not destroyed once the war starts. I think it behooves everyone at Apple to prepare for the war and to figure out likely alternatives, and to also assume that the usual grey market way of getting around it will be anticipated by the federal government, and under war conditions the federal government may have a harsher point of view on it than they usually would with country of origin manipulation.
Even if the US wins a war over Taiwan, it'd probably take a long time to resolve, and trade would be disrupted for long enough that nothing is getting off the island until peace is re-established. Right now, if nothing changes with the US-China trajectory, war is coming. If the trajectory changes, that might change.
To me the only left long term solution is to move as much technology and specialized workforce out of China to rebuild chip farms in different countries. I understand it's a very long and costly process, but also the mere starting it could work as a leverage.
Hacker News: Big tech stiffles competition, the little guy can't compete
Also Hacker News: small independent publishers leveraging email for publishing shouldn't get engagement data on their independent newsletters.
Aggregate open rate data is vital to a newsletter. It makes it easy to spot delivery issues. It's an early indication of content quality, and important feedback loop.
I'm fully for blocking identifiable tracking. But isn't there room for a solution for anonymous engagement metrics?
Email newsletters are a great way for individuals to control their distribution channel built on top of federated, decentralized technology.
Guess, there is issue in https://status.twitterstat.us itself - it parses Twitter API, and that is why there are NO issues (Twitter API is working even now!).
As a PWA on Android this is great! I can share from Spotify and then it opens a Songwhip link to share. Solves a minor problem I have about sharing music links.
