sodality2

I’ve seen it at a few places in the US, typically somewhere they have a paid unlimited/fast plan but a free tier for a limited time to be able to say they offer “free wifi”. So places it costs money to offer wifi. Maybe a flight, cruise, etc

Absolutely! There’s existing solutions for this, if you hunt around, but if you wanted to customize it, it would be pretty easy.

If you wanted to make the transcription locally hosted to save on OpenAI costs, you can use my crate, mutter [0], which makes self-hosting the Whisper model super easy :)

[0]: https://crates.io/crates/mutter

> By accepting ToS, or using service with ToS, you are entering a legal contract

Half right. Only if I accept them affirmatively with a clickwrap, like your article mentions. Implicitly accepted ones do not count. I’m not signed into youtube.com, so there is no acceptance of ToS.

Not true. Maybe the only plausible reason Iran has to make them, but that's a different claim.

True. I doubt that the US would have this strong of a reaction to a different non-compliant country we were allied with, though. (Can you imagine the US bunker-bombing Germany, SK, AUS, etc?)

True. Weapons grade in approximately 2 months was one estimate given by the Institute for Science and International Security.

60% is not weapons grade.

By "others", you presumably mean credible threats from enemy states (since we allow Israel to secretly harbor nuclear weaponry with no problem). But no, I don't think that. I think it's nuanced, and I think that it's wrong to frame it with language like "let", instead of saying it like it is: starting a war to intervene. War in the Middle East is historically a bad idea, and there better be a good reason to justify the senseless death. I think the seriousness of that decision should not be minimized by statements like "well we couldn't just let them do anything". There is a serious chance of this escalating into something far worse.

Flies in the face of the US intelligence community’s report at the end of March [0], but, I am not floored if true. Do you have any sources?

Edit: If you mean "Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)" [1], that report explicitly mentions up to 60% which is not weapons grade.

[0]: https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2... [1]: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...

Your question necessitates the idea that the US is some sort of worldwide nanny state, where anything that happens without an action, the US “let” happen. It’s an innocent question but the assumptions are far more drastic. Reflect on some other alternatives besides “the US is in charge of everything”, especially looking at our track record in the Middle East.

Let’s hope whatever intel that says Iran really does have nukes is true, given its propensity as a scapegoat for previous wars. Don’t forget that less than 2 months ago, senior intelligence officials said conclusively Iran was not close to having nuclear weapons.

Edit: 3 months, and source: https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2...

It just resets the MAC address, making the router believe it's a new device, thus not subject to the "x minute" free WiFi.

Terms of service aren't legally binding. Theft is of course illegal.

> Few shows are relentless about it.

My favorite relentless one is Tracker (Amazon Prime), who spend approximately 30% of screen time dedicated to showing off a GMC pickup and Airstream, but the most egregious was one dialog line:

> As Colter enters and gives them hugs, Velma remembers that they got a gift for him. Reenie hands him the gift - very conspicuously packaged in an Amazon box with its trademark logo and blue tape - and says, "I've gotta say, next-day delivery is pretty sweet. Thank you, Amazon Prime!"

> the agreement you make with YouTube is that you watch an ad in exchange for the video

I never made that agreement. And if some software on my computer somehow gets YouTube to deliver me the content anyway, that's not my fault. In my view, it's a cat and mouse game, they can do whatever they want to try to stop me, and vice versa. If they win, I won't complain; but if I do, so be it.

True, but that’s a website, of which the set of them come with bespoke features. I’d assume someone who adopted the API knows it’s easier to switch because it’s an open standard.

Once you get to a certain complexity of notebooks, I find it only serves to complicate my mental model to “experiment” out of order. It makes me far more likely to forget to “commit” an ordering change.

> So who knows, maybe LLM coding stays in a similar pretty-good-never-perfect state for a decade.

I think this is definitely a possibility, but I think the technology is still WAY too early to know that if the "second AI winter" the author references never comes, that we still wouldn't discover tons of other use cases that would change a lot.

Also true! But that world is one where the vast majority of time is spent cleaning up slop code, so if there's a general shift towards that, I think that still changes the job in a significant way. (I don't have extensive history in the industry yet so I may be wrong here)

This article is spot on about a lot of things. One thing I think it fails to address is this:

> I feel confident in asserting that people who say this would not have hired a translator or learned Japanese in a world without Google Translate; they’d have either not gone to Japan at all, or gone anyway and been clueless foreigners as tourists are wont to do.

The correlation here would be something like: the people using AI to build apps previously would simply never have created an app, so it’s not affecting software development as a career as much as you first expect.

It would be like saying AI art won’t affect artists, because the people who would put in such little effort probably would never have commissioned anyone. Which may be a little true (at least in that it reduces the impact).

However, I don’t necessarily know if that’s true for software development. The ability to build software enabled huge business opportunities at very low costs. I think the key difference is this: the people who are now putting in such low effort into commissioning software maybe did hire software engineers before this, and that might throw off a lot of the numbers.

I still don’t think there’s any real stickiness to using a Google model over any other model, with things like openrouter. So maybe for brand recognition alone.

"Used" is a strong term, they're not really utilizing the DRM codepaths, AFAIK it simply tells the OS that the window is software that does use DRM and thus should be excluded from any screenshots. The existence of DRM and desire of Windows to abide by its rules are what Signal relies on.

If you’re referring specifically to cars, you might be right: I’m not sure if they implement the MAC randomization most consumer products do, most of my testing was on those

I think interpreting a chatbot’s output as a company’s “direct advice” is an unsubstantiated jump. In the same way that if an unhandled error code in a program resulted in “DIE DIE DIE”, “Abort/kill child”, etc (trying to make these programming-related here) being alerted to the user, no reasonable person would hold the company responsible for the user taking this as a command. Imagine if we lived in a world where arbitrary text being sent by an entity could result in prosecution? I just don’t believe the chat UI to be a big enough bridge between the two examples to justify it.

BLE transmissions go much further last time I experimented with them [0]. However the problem of anonymity comes into play since they frequently generate new MAC addresses.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38252566

Yep. Their brand of ALPR cameras have spread like a plague very quickly all over the US

Hey, following that rule precisely, we just need 10x longer security prompts :)

Older DRM is more commonly cracked because there’s more time to crack it. Though the arms race has grown way more sophisticated from the supply side

I'd be willing to bet the sum of all code submitted via patches, ideas discussed via lists, etc doesn't come close to the true amount of knowledge collected by the average kernel developer's tinkering, experimenting, etc that never leaves their computer. I also wonder if that would lead to overfitting: the same bugs being perpetuated because they were in the training data.