This has been my thought as well. Inflation was high, so low-propensity voters against the current party show up while those for the current party don't. It will take some time to see what the actual voting shifts were, but the economy has always been an accurate predictor.
It would remove any incentive to intentionally worsen the non-Chrome(ium) experience. Relevant if you suspect they are deliberately sabotaging Firefox. (That would be a foolish move to make while they are in the middle of multiple antitrust cases and already lost one, but companies aren't immune to acting like idiots)
From what I have seen, there are the main tasks (of which there are generally only 2 active at once), and side tasks. New side tasks unlock as you complete each tier of main tasks, and seem to be a mix between teaching different useful patterns you will need and something to do while waiting for the main tasks to finish.
If you play on the harder difficulties, you are limited by the number of platforms you can build (even if you later delete one). You earn more by delivering certain shapes, with more complex shapes giving more points. It means your platforms both need to be efficient, and you need to be thoughtful in how you place them.
I would imagine most people are not using all 14, but some subset. If you have friends and family that are not all on the same services, having a unified inbox to talk to them all without having to remember who you talk to on what is convenient.
Is it more ridiculous than having someone standing at a cash register in the store doing the same task, while also having to bag for you and pretend to smile?
> I'm wondering of how useful pre-assembled programs like "draw detections on an image or video" are
As someone who works in the video-security space, you would be surprised on the number of customers who love exactly this. All they want is something to draw the attention of the bored security guard watching the cameras.
Looks like a more robust type system than Jsonnet (but less than Cue), with some amount of flow-control that Cue doesn't seem to support. I am not very familiar with Cue though.
Everyone I have heard talk about that initial demo mentioned it was weird and creepy.
But I do not think it was ever the plan that you would create spatial videos primarily from the headset. You can also take them with the latest gen of iPhones, but the VisionPro demo predated the iPhone announcement.
Depending on the developer, there is also quite a lot of trust I need to impart on them too. I am reasonably confident in Apple keeping my data secure. I would likely be confident in it for the bigger apps out there, like your Netflix or Spotifys. But some rando app, would I be comfortable putting my personal and financial info on their server, instead of just using Apple's?
Beeper has an application to consolidate many different messaging applications into a single app. One of those messaging apps was iMessage, with the added ability to use iMessage on Android.
Previously, they did this by effectively having you sign-in to iCloud on a Mac system running in their datacenter. Handing over your iCloud password to a third-party obviously has security implications, even if you trust Beeper wont intentionally abuse it.
Recently, they had a new Beeper-Mini, that instead reversed-engineered the iMessage protocol and spoofed your Android phonenumber as being an Apple device. This allowed you to use iMessage without ever handing over your password to some remote server (although, still handing it over to a third-party application, and trusting it doesn't do something shady).
Beeper, for its part, has claimed this reverse-engineering falls under the protection of allowed exceptions for the purpose of interoperability. Apple has not yet made any legal claim one way or another, and instead just shutdown the method being used to gain access to iMessage from non-Apple devices.
That's somewhat in debate, the last I saw. The initial report was it affected a user using Firefox, and it didn't when they switched useragents. Since then, there have been reports of users not seeing it in Firefox, but seeing it in other (even chromium-based) browsers. So it seems likely they are A/B testing it, but less clear if they are intentionally targeting non-Chrome browsers.
Their goal, quite clearly, is to prevent (or at least heavily discourage) adblockers. This is one attempt to detect them, and maybe in Chrome they have a different detection mechanism so it doesn't show the same behavior.
It would be a particularly foolish move on their part to push Chrome by punishing everything else right now, while they are in the middle of multiple anti-trust lawsuits. It makes me think that is unlikely to be the intent of this change.
There is also something to be said about who is the larger trade partner. If you do more trade with the US than the Eurozone, makes more sense to choose the dollar.
OPs point, I think, is that wasting the user's time is part of the point of the code. This specific code seems partially meant as a punishment of the user for using an adblocker.
I've been using it because we deliver application servers based on Red Hat / CentOS to customers that are unfamiliar with Linux. 99% of the time, they do not need to log in to the command-line for anything. When they do, Cockpit has been a lot easier for them to understand than navigating ssh and bash.
Strictly speaking, it is over the companies monopoly in search. Google also lives in other markets where there is competition, so this may be about those markets not search.
The legal system is not like a computer program. The line between what is "creative" and what is not concrete, but is instead up to the interpretation of the judge who rules on it.
So your phonebook modifications may or may not be considered "creative" depending on the judge and your ability to convince them. The more your modify it, the more likely you are to convince a judge it is a creative work, though.
More over, you are clearly not in violation of copyright if you are talking about statistics about the material. In your example, printing out a "there were 7000 instances of the word 'the'" is certainly not a violation. A ML model is just a huge pile of these statistics.
However, saying "the first word of the book is 'The'" would not be a violation, while repeating that for every word in the book, as a whole, would be one.
I would say that is uncertain. Model weights are always going to effectively be a huge collection of statistics about the training corpus. Unless you are envisioning artisanal, hand-crafted, free-range model weights where a person used a non-mathematical method to purposely and creatively choose each one?
There have been some talk of various countries requiring AI images be watermarked. They may be trying to signal their willingness to comply, and hopefully ensure they are not outright banned. That fact it can be bypassed isn't necessarily their problem to fix.
It existed for advertisers. All the "censorship" being moaned about is because brands would stop advertising on the platform if Twitter couldn't give reasonable guarantees that their ads would not run next to extremely toxic content.
This seems pretty self evident, since most of them left as soon as Musk took over with the promise to stop policing the platform.
As far as I can tell, Zitadel cannot be used as a SAML client, only as a provider. One of my requirements is that we use customer-provided (and controlled) SAML for SSO. Otherwise it was looking very promising.
Yep, this is why I have been evaluating it recently. Have a customer that wants SAML 2.0 support, others that want LDAP support, 2FA support, and multi-tenancy support, while being something we can self-host. The other main suggestions I have seen - ORY or Zitadel - tend to be missing at least one of those (from what I can tell).
Keycloak looks like a big complicated monster, so I would prefer to stay away except that it looks like I will be required to have all that complexity to support all the use-cases we are looking at.
Clearly it isn't. Could be a miscalculation on their part, but I still think it more plausible they are hoping to find a big customer who will actually pay those prices.
Unless they are entirely delusional (which is possible), they have to had priced it with a specific few customers in mind. If they think they can get a cut of ChatGPT money going forward, I think they would be entirely willing to sacrifice all 3rd party apps and a decent chunk of their mobile users.
On the flip side, if they wanted to kill the popular apps, why wouldn't they just block them directly instead of doing so indirectly through crazy API pricing?
This is my read as well. I don't really understand the argument that Reddit wants to kill 3rd party apps, so makes an unaffordable API. If they want to kill 3rd party apps... why wouldn't they just kill them directly? Why leave any ability to purchase API access unless they have a customer in mind that can afford to buy it at that price?
We are already seeing chips for inference, really. It's how these models are getting into the consumer market. A lot of the big phones have an inference chip (tensor, neural core, etc), TV are getting them, most GPUs have some stuff dedicated for inference (DSS and superres).
It is frustrating how often I have to tell my non-techy CEO to rewind a step, and tell me the problem he is trying to solve not the half-baked solution he came up with. One bad idea he has had for over a decade, and I have to keep beating it down since it is an extremely stupid method to solve nothing.