mrhottakes

The Samsung foldables are an entirely different size and aspect ratio; how is the Duo a copy of something entirely different?

How can you make a computer or smartphone that's distinct from the competition? These are commodity appliances built to a price point with some graphic design slapped on top to pretty it up.

Based on the marketing materials, the Duo is different from other folds because: - Runs iOS with lots(?) of attention to UI - Won't break from a piece of dust - IP68 rated - Will actually receive software updates unlike many Android devices

et cetera et cetera

> the first iPhone was years ahead of its time

Not really, not if you were paying attention to the market at the time. It was the first smartphone to put everything in a cohesive package instead of being a weird little computer that could make phone calls, but technologically it was comparable to features that already existed when it released. The real innovation was in UI and product design.

Correct, it's not that. It's worse.

If I wasn't talking to you and you were just listening to me in public, yes.

> It is absolutely impressive; these types of models are going to change the world in one form or another.

> But at least for the moment I don’t know how to work with it for actual software engineering.

These two statements seem contradictory.

Apple isn't really an innovator, at least in the sense of delivering "new" things. Their success is in assessing a market and refining products for consumer adoption.

Mac wasn't the first personal computer but it was well-suited for the mass market, not just "computer people". iPod wasn't the first mp3 player but the first that was easy for regular folks to use. iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, but the first one that people actually wanted.

There's a pattern here.

The linked page is entirely incomprehensible.

Do you honestly think roads and the internet are similar? I don't think you've really thought that through.

Yeah, looking around at society today it's obvious the main problem is the government trying too hard and passing too much legislation.

> Why do everyone assume they are subsidized?

It's not an assumption when the companies hosting the models publicly announce that they're subsidizing costs.

Worthington's Law strikes again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vudnMLzZjTg

I'm glad you are recognizing that different things are different.

People with power do what they want, and regular people don't like it. Glad you saw the error of your ways.

You're looking at people upset about Lake Ontario being renamed and saying "people don't get upset about things being renamed." Different things are different.

How about "don't openly support a fascist regime by giving it money and attending the inauguration"?

Yep. They're open and obvious about it.

Pretty weak troll, but there are a lot of good reasons that society agrees to call things by common names.

Which previous administration renamed everything under the sun?

> Nothing I know about Google informs me that anyone there is thrilled about the change either

Oh, at least a few people are thrilled: https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/420aa69/214...

Google is raking in money from the Trump administration. Sundar and the other execs are all in, they love the guy.

Great piece. Seeing that depth and context is one of the best parts of gaining intellectual maturity.

Anecdotally, in the tech industry you usually will need to change companies to move up. Certainly not true everywhere, but it's been a "feature" of the industry for a decade or more.

I think the headline accurately describes the content of the article. The actual op ed is linked.

Deterministic tools are very useful for people that need a single answer that is verifiably correct (or at least wrong in a way that follows a deterministic process).

Plus, very few orgs are letting employees run up cloud spend bills to replace spreadsheets.

Not really. That's a very facile way to look at the history of technology.

Anyone that takes the "OpenAI agents did a hacking swarm!" story at face value is naive and helping Altman pump value for the IPO.

Well they can have it I guess, I'm not really using it.

CIA funding helped keep a lot of industries afloat in the 20th century.

You're far enough behind that you had to create a burner account to tell someone to self-harm.