> I recognize this is a hard concept to understand for folks on this site, but the average joe signing up for a VPN doesn't even remotely understand what they are doing and why.
Really this is the answer to half of the comments on this thread.
> Is there any real-life situation in which this matters, though?
You’d be shocked at the number of people in regulated industries that thinks a VPN inherently makes them more secure. If you think your traffic exits in the US and it exits in Canada — or really anywhere that isn’t the US — that can cause problems with compliance, and possibly data domicile promises made to clients and regulators.
At minimum, not being able to rely on the provider that you are routing your client’s data through is a big deal.
Pretty much for everything, except for things that are already tied to my real world identity like email and a few sites that know who I am.
It accomplishes 2 things:
* I'm not tracked as much. Less data points for the companies to gobble up.
* More Tor users lead to better anonymity for everyone as it's easier to blend in - you won't be the only one wearing a mask at the club every weekend.
I got used to the latency. It's not that bad. Some sites load instantly, others take 1-2 seconds. A few take a while.
Sites from one regional hosting provider in my country just don't load at all. I get "Server not found". I'm not sure how that works - are they blackholing an ASN or using something else with BGP?
The main issue for me is not the latency, though, but the CAPTCHAs and 403's (HTTP Forbidden). If I were to search for a recipe, for example, I'd open 5-10 of the results in new tabs (with the middle mouse button; idk why people use CTRL+click), then close the ones with "Attention Required" or "Forbidden" so I'm left with 3-5 usable sites. That way I always have something to read. When I open a few sites one after the other, at least one will usually load instantly.
I haven't used Tor without Whonix on Qubes OS for a while, so I'm not sure if the latency is different on a standard OS with just Tor Browser installed. My workflow is that I use disposable VMs for different things I do. Right now I have a VM with HN and a few links I've opened from it and another VM with other research I started earlier today that I plan on finishing a bit later. When I'm done with my HN session, I'll close this VM, which will destroy it. For me this compartmentalization is good not only for security and privacy, but for productivity, as well.
Nadella has to have his own custom agents. It isn't even possible for an enterprise like MSFT to not have custom agents that are still remotely useful.
So, his experience with Copilot agents != Average Customer's experience
Look, if the CEO of a five trillion dollar company investing hundreds of billions into AI can come up with some custom agents to handle every aspect of the CEO's work, surely your average Microsoft 365-subscribing corporation can do the same.
It's just another example of the rich being wildly out of touch. Yes, Beyonce has the same 24 hours in a day that the rest of us have, but she also has enough money to pay people to do every aspect of her life that isn't bringing her joy or wealth. Yes, AI can be used to streamline workflows or help you find signal in the noise so you can focus on the important things better, but if every company has to build that themselves then no company is going to see the value of spending a bunch of extra money on something that they can only get benefit from if they spend even more money.
If the 'AI agents' that Nadella is talking about were part of Copilot then sure, okay, I could see a benefit, but when people in this thread are saying that Outlook can't even tell you who is in a meeting then it certainly explains why Nadella doesn't understand the lack of value.
There's an important difference as to what is omitted.
An encyclopedia could say "general relativity is how the universe works" or it could say "general relativity and quantum mechanics describe how we understand the universe today and scientists are still searching for universal theory".
Both are short but the first statement is omitting important facts. Lossy in the sense of not explaining details is ok, but omitting swathes of information would be wrong.
How was the model trained?
The gpt-oss models were pretrained primarily using synthetic data along with some heavily filtered real code. The models were then post-trained using distillation (RLKD against o3/hailmary) and berry. For more details about the model training process, please refer to the documentation.
Really this is the answer to half of the comments on this thread.
reply