boplicity

I once tinkered with the game streaming set up available via Steam, so I could do it in a way where it streamed the normal complete desktop setup. I used it to operate my desktop from the laptop.

It worked relatively well, but wasn't perfect. It was as close to what you're describing as I've seen, though. This was a few years ago; something like this might work even better now.

Your comment illustrates the tension very well, I think. Businesses don't generally want customers who aren't their core market; those people though, often want one slice of a business's offerings. This can lead to big distractions for businesses, as putting in the effort to serve the wrong market is a waste of time. The publishing industry really fell for this when the internet became widespread; they dreamed of huge audiences and big ad numbers. Turns out, that was not a model that worked, at all. The model that works is focusing on serving a niche, and charging a subscription fee, so you can get predictable revenue.

No, the biggest problem with micropayments is that they just don't match the needs of publishers. At all.

They work very well for LLM tokens though. So, go ahead and get your news that way.

Almost no publisher wants micropayments. Full stop. Micropayments are simply not good business.

OpenAI is worth the discounted value of their future free cash flow. It's not clear at this point how much free cash flow they will ever generate, if any.

Do you think that Fox News was right when they said COVID shots cause an 87% miscarriage rate? Or is it a completely misleading and ludicrous claim?

Instead of not including the target, AI would have confidently stated some incorrect number.

I don't think there's a USB-C charger out there that can actually pump out anything close to their rated maximum.

The entire world has social standards that people generally abide by in private residences -- set by the owners of those residences. Just because something is happening everywhere, doesn't mean another thing can't happen too.

> draconian social scoring

This is a legitimate question: should people have reputations? Should their behavior be made more visible publicly, both good and bad? How?

In a small contained society, where consequences are more directly affecting individuals immedately, these questions don't need to be asked, because they're inherantly answered. We now are a society with billions of people, and dire consequences sometimes deferred for a generation, or more. Part of our general failing is the lack of good answers to the above questions. For many people, there are rarely negative consequences for causing harm to others, and the rewards can be very great indeed.

Build up with small challenges. Not sure how old your daughter is, but, for example, our 7 year got a gift card. They wanted to know how much it was worth -- so they were the ones who had to go up to the counter to ask the employee. Just practicing going into uncomfortable or unfamiliar situations is valuable, and leads to confidence for the bigger stuff.

Maybe the default "new tab" view for a browser could be an RSS reader? Is that something along the lines of what you're proposing?

Email is so well designed, so resilient, and so ubiquitous that's very hard to displace it's use as a central check-in.

For many, many tasks, you only need good enough results that accomplish a clearly-defined set of criteria. Smaller models that run 50x faster, in this case, could be far superior to a much slower model that meets the same criteria.

Sometimes you need speed; sometimes you need quality. There are very different use cases for each. For my own workflows, I sometimes want something very simple done ASAP; other workflows need "subjective" reasoning and careful crafting of responses.

>This makes these projects so much more trustworthy and easier to approach:

>> Were any of the words here written using AI? Nope. They came from my mouth or my fingers.

I have to push back on this a bit, as I believe (quite strongly) that we're shaped by the tools we use; text-to-speech LLMs are still LLMs, and generally their mistakes are shaped by the expectations inherent in their training. This, in turn, shapes the words that appear on the screen. For those who regularly use them, you then learn which word sequences are likely to be accurately transcribed, and this definitively becomes part of your thinking process. Over time, the LLM becomes tangled into your thinking; the use of AI, even in this way, very much can and often does shape the resulting words.

Anyone else ever think of somehow building an at-home carbon-removal system, for lower carbon content in the air of your living spaces? I know it's a silly idea, but one that has occurred to me from time to time.

A job doesn't usually involve a lifetime contract. And if it does, the severance required had better be incredible.

Nobody should "sacrifice future career prospects" just for a job. And if they do, it's hard to blame the employer on this, especially considering the premise implies they had choice in the matter.

Interesting! Would it be fair to say your company spend $100k to $150k per month on this?

Multiply this times many, many companies, and you can see how providing AI could theoretically be a good business to be in. Margins may be tight, though.

Also -- I'm convinced someone will figure out more use cases beyond software programming, which will result in many more companies spending $1k+ per employee per month.

It remains to be seen how much of this is a bubble.

This is indeed my standard practice. In my head, I just tell myself "I'm buying a month."

If you say "Our goal is to represent the views of the right wing", then you're making it clear that you are being honest about your perspective. This then encourages both you and your readers to be aware of the bias, which does combat hidden influence of bias, making it more likely to be a choice.

This often happens when the news source is not honest about their biases, or if they don't make their biases clear. Fox News is the classic example: Their tagline is "fair and balanced," but their clear objective is to present the Republican/Conservative side of the story. This dishonesty about their bias is at the core of their credibility problems, though, to be clear, it does work in terms of effectively deceiving many people.

I think Fox News is a good example, because their public messaging has always been "fair and balanced" while at the same time blatantly have a bias; this is just one aspect of how they are clearly deceptive. If instead of calling themselves "fair and balanced" they said they were all about "the Republican Perspective on News" they would immediately be more honest, and it would be easier to understand them as an organization, especially for the people who are regularly deceived by them right now.

I'm not arguing that we should try to exaggerate our biases, or even to center them, but rather, we can become more honest by making our biases clear and explicit to those we're communicating with. Many organizations avoid openly addressing their biases, which makes them less honest overall, and more prone to being deceptive. If you're aware of your biases you can actually account for them, as opposed to letting them blind you. Further, if you're public with that awareness, others can account for them as well, and be less likely to be deceived (even accidentally) by your communication.

Too often, bias is ignored. It always exists. If we name it and make it visible, then we can have a chance at reducing its potential for deception.

I'm not saying that media should be used to influence instead of inform.

Rather, I'm saying you should acknowledge that you are influenced and will influence, and be explicit about what those influences are. This is the only way to actually combat bias; not by eliminating bias, but by making it visible, so it can be accounted for with everyone's thinking.

You can't be impartial; everyone has their own sets of biases that they can't get around. These are sometimes obvious, sometimes not, but they're always there. It's not necessarily intentionally dishonest to say you're impartial, but it fundamentally is dishonest to claim you're capable of the impossible.

Don't try to be "objective" or "impartial." That's an impossible task, and anyone claiming to do so is being dishonest.

Instead, own your biases. Make them explicit and public. That way people can understand were you're coming from, and take that into account.

There will always be bias in any reporting. It's better to make it visible than to pretend it doesn't exist.

This means having a clear perspective and "owning" that perspective, instead of shying away from it.

Coincidentally, this type of thinking can dramatically increase brand loyalty and trust.

There is no micro-payment problem from the perspective of the vast majority of publishers. They simply don't want it. End of story.

Many people think you should avoid having bias. That may be the correct thing in some circumstances, but I think it's better to intentionally have bias, to make that bias explicit, and then to intentionally work within the framework provided by that bias. It should be open, public, and visible.

This allows for full transparency with the audience, increasing trust, while also giving a public "anchor" to guage your work against.

Many organizations do just this. Outside of news it's often just called "culture" or "branding," but it's more important, IMO, to be explicit, public, and clear about this in a news setting, and very much can serve as away to defend against outside influence.

Also keep in mind that none of the big chip purchasers (Apple, Nvidia, etc), want to depend on one supplier for their chips. There are huge incentives among them to encourage Intel's success.

Nobody benefits if just one company controls the state of the art in chip manufacturing, and Intel is one of maybe two other companies positioned to have a chance at competing effectively with TSMC.

Cloudflare is increasingly a problem in terms of blocking huge geographic regions, often without the website operators even being aware this is happening. All in the name of "security."

I actually really like Composer 2. For my use case, between the planning tool, and getting it to ask a lot of clarifying questions, I regularly get very good results. I'm not doing anything complex though; mostly staying in the lane of very common web app type code.