whatevertrevor

If your primary use case is to read books off of Kindle, I'd say no, because Remarkable doesn't run on Android, and as such has no Kindle app. You can de-DRM Kindle books to read on it, but then you're adding these steps for no real gain.

If you're reading comics, then maybe, because this device is expensive precisely for the colored-e-ink screen. But even then better alternatives for that usecase probably exist, as the e-ink space is filled with Android based devices with better format compatibility.

They also have the USB C charging quirk/cheap-out that if they're completely drained they will only charge with a low powered trickle charger until the device gets to some minimal level of charge, and then you can use a higher power source.

The Pro is because it's a colored display. Though I do agree I can't wait until we're done with the whole "Pro" branding non-sense everywhere in hardware.

I agree (as another RM2 user). It's great for writing stuff down, but for retrieval it's at best high-friction, sometimes just plain irritating.

If a workflow for exporting my remarkable notes as SVG to obsidian but then also running OCR over them so I can search through them (without converting them to editable text because that's usually a formatting nightmare) existed, I'd be so happy as it would solve the retrieval problem.

I'm trading classes with my partner on my remarkable (she's teaching me Social Choice Theory, me her Physics), I agree with almost everything you said but there are a few reasons why I'm going the Remarkable route here:

- I don't need to take pictures manually, all lectures are automatically stored, and much easier to flip through instead of a library of photos (which I'd have to later organize).

- I use the screenshare feature which turns my Remarkable into a whiteboard. I could get an actual whiteboard but then we're back to taking manual pictures in the middle of lessons, which will definitely be an impedance.

I wish Remarkable had better software compatibility though. Importing books from Kindle is a multi-step process, a bunch of formats aren't supported, and their first party app doesn't even work on linux.

Haven't tried OCR on it, but I've heard other e-Readers have them beat on that end too.

I'm not referring to the specific context of this lawsuit, but the broader context in general.

Google is in multiple anti-competitive lawsuits, while Apple has the most walled garden of all gardens, protects it with a giant club and manages to get away without a scratch. For example Google got sued for anti-competitive practices in Android regarding third party stores, Apple gets no such lawsuit because they simply made it impossible.

Of course it's the laws to blame since they incentivize aggressively closed ecosystems from the get go, but it's odd that there isn't even a conversation about it regarding Apple.

Yeah, that's an interesting side of this. How is Apple not under any fire for basically weaponizing something as basic as internet search on their platform? If we think this practice is anti-competitive shouldn't we also make it illegal for the platforms to do this?

It's a little bit like sentencing the sex-worker to jail but letting the pimp go scot free.

MBTI is absolutely bullshit, it's like one level above horoscopes and astrology, but very similar type of BS. There's also the Gallup crap that many corps were doing to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each employee so they could fit them into neat buckets such as "Leader" vs "Follower", as if these aren't skills people develop over time but actual personality traits.

I'm not trying to diminish the complexity of a desktop OS of course, but sometimes it's hard not to feel the priorities are all over the place. Don't get me wrong, I'm not nostalgic about Windows XP, I actually remember how many freezes and crashes I used to have back then.

My frustration is more born out of the OS rough edges constantly getting in the way of tasks I actually want to focus on and accomplish, which doesn't play well with my ADHD.

My hot take is all OSes are kinda bad for daily driving.

Apple has no qualms breaking backwards compatibility for core functions like bluetooth connectivity in MacOS. Windows has backwards compatibility, but increasingly worsening UX, throwing ads and subscriptions in your face before you can even log in, and a bad security/process isolation model. Desktop Linux is a case of "how many hours before I find out a critical part of my workflow is unsupported/bad/broken/unconfigurable/pain-to-configure in this particular distro/desktop environment".

Sure, but I did choose my words precisely for that reason. That's why I said it usually correlates with hours. Hours of labor put in is not the metric that makes art worth it to me, it's more a question of a skilled artist ensuring their message comes through, in the highest "resolution" possible, which requires a high amount of attention to detail, and usually requires a good amount of labor for the output to be interesting.

I don't agree with this for two different reasons.

First: I don't think the analogy holds.

Recording a performance is not the same as generating a recording of a performance that never happened. To be abundantly clear, I'm not making an oversimplification generalization of the form "Tool-assisted Art is not Art actually", but pointing out that there's a lot of nuance in what we consume, how we consume it and what underlying assumptions we use to guide that consumption. There's a lot of low effort human created art, that IMO is in a similar bracket, but ultimately to me, Art that is worth spending my time consuming usually correlates with Art that has many many hours of dedicated labor poured into it. Writing a prompt in a couple minutes that generates a 20 minute podcast has a lower chance of actually connecting with me, so making that specific use-case easier is a loss for me. Using AI in ways that simplify the tedious bits of art creation for people who nevertheless have a strong opinion of what they want their artpiece to say, and are willing to spend the effort to fine tune it to make it say that, is a very valid, very welcome use-case from my perspective.

Second: Even if your premise that digitization devalued art is true, it doesn't necessarily imply it's something actually bad.

I have no intention to see the Mona Lisa in person, I'm glad I can check it out on the internet and know that I'm uninterested in it. You might think it has devalued it for me, and you'd be technically correct, but I'm happier for it. People have access to more art, and more information, that allows them to more accurately assess what they truly connect with. The rarity of the experience is now less of a factor in deciding the worth of it, which is a good thing because it draws me towards the qualities of it that matter more: the joy it could potentially provide, and the curiosity it could potentially satiate. Instead of potentially being railroaded into going to the circus because everyone seems to be raving about it, yet I have no idea what they do beyond what people say about it.

Of course there's a huge element of filtering bias on social media, because people still want their experiences to look and sound AMAZING after the fact. But at least with more information you have the potential to make a more informed decision.

The kind of attack vector is irrelevant here, what's important is the attack surface. Not to mention this is a tool facilitating the attack, with little to no direct interaction with the user in some cases. Just because spear-phishing is old and boring doesn't mean it cannot have real consequences.

(Even if we agree with the premise that this is just "spear-phishing", which honestly a semantics argument that is irrelevant to the more pertinent question of how important it is to prevent this attack vector)

Maybe in the short term, but I think ultimately there are lots of things Humans want (AI or no AI), and that means there's a lot of value to create in the world still. Which means there will still be jobs, just maybe not as much in the churning-out-websites-and-"content"-business.

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to flippant about the potential for destroyed value here. Many industries (like journalism*) really need to figure this out faster, the advertising model might collapse very quickly when people lose trust that they're reading Human created and vetted material. And there will be broader fallout if all these bonkers AI investments fail to pay off.

[*] Though for journalism specifically it feels like we as a society need to figure out the trust problem, we're rapidly approaching a place of prohibitively-difficult-to-validate-information for things that are too important to get wrong.

But in other phishing attempts the user actually gives out their password (unintentionally) to an unscrupulous actor. In this case there's a middle-man (the AI extension) doing that for you, sometimes without even confirming with you what you want.

I think this is more akin to say a theoretical browser not implementing HTTPS properly so people's credentials/sessions can be stolen with MiTM attacks or something. Clearly the bad behavior is in the toolchain and not the user here, and I'm not sure how much you can wave away claiming "We told you it's not fully safe." You can't sell tomatoes that have a 10% chance of giving you food poisoning, even if you declare that chance on the label, you know?

I wonder how this will even fare in the review process, or if the big AI players will get a free pass here. My intuition says that it's a risk that Google/Chrome absolutely don't want to own, it will be curious to see how "Agentic" AI gets deployed in browsers from a liability fallout perspective.

It's full of the n-word right now. I'm really not surprised.

That's where the analogy starts to fall apart then. Because the variance in those decisions is not very similar, since you're sampling very different underlying distributions. And estimating the priors for a problem like "what is the optimal arrangement of tables to maximize throughput in a cafe" is very different from a problem like "what is the current untapped/potential demand for a boardgaming cafe in this city, and how profitable would that business be".

The main reason why professional poker players are playing the long-game, is because they're consistently playing the same game. Over and over.

I agree with that.

I think part of the issue with the lack of "real" quantification in the results of LLMs is that the output and problem domain is so ill-defined. With standard neural nets (and other kinds of ML) classifiers, regression models and reinforcement models all had very narrow, domain specific problems they were solving. It was a no-brainer to measure directly how your vision classifier performs against a radiologist in determining whether an image corresponds to lung cancer.

Now we've opened up the output to a wide variety of open-ended domains: natural languages, programming languages, images and videos. Since the output domain is inherently subjective, it's hard to get a good handle on their usefulness, let alone getting people to agree on that. Hence the never-ending discourse around them.

You're right in a descriptive manner, but I also think the parent comment's point is about correctness and not determinism.

In other engineering fields correctness-related-guarantees can often be phrased in probabilistic ways, e.g. "This bridge will withstand a 10-year flood event but not a 100-year flood event", but underneath those guarantees are hard deterministic load estimates with appropriate error margins.

And I think that's where the core disagreement between you and the parent comment lies. I think they're trying to say AI generated code-pushers are often getting fuzzy on speccing out the behavior guarantees of their own software. In some ways the software industry has _always_ been bad at this, despite working with deterministic math, surprise software bugs are plentiful, but vibe-coding takes this to another level.

(This is my best-case charitable understanding of what they're saying, but also happens to be where I stand)

Except you can play hundreds of thousands of poker hands in your lifetime, but only have time/energy/money to start a handful of businesses.

Cheaper poorer quality ads means a bad time for us, people who are being incessantly targeted by this crap.

Websites are already finding creative ways around DNS blocklists for ads serving.

Yeah the conversation on both extremes feels almost religious at times. The pro LLM hype feels more disconcerting sometimes because there are literally billions if not trillions of dollars riding on this thing, so people like Sam Altman have a strong incentive to hype the shit out of it.

I don't think throwing out the concept of code reviews and version control is the correct response to a purported rise in low-effort high-volume patches. If anything it's even more required.

What are you concerned about specifically? What bits of Obsidian should they work on polishing instead?

(not trying to be hostile, just curious as another Obsidian user who is excited by this feature because the current meta search functionality is really poor IMO and this is very much needed polish from my perspective)

Doesn't even need a plugin, just some custom CSS iirc.

Where in Canada?

I had the complete opposite experience last winter in Ontario. I asked my doctor about ADHD, he had me fill two forms, set up an appointment with a psychologist, who after a couple weeks of appointments was ready to prescribe Atomoxetine (at my request since I wanted stimulants only as a last resort).

I paid for nothing in this entire exchange, and the meds are usually covered by an extended drug plan if you have one.

On the other hand, your feelings don't exist in a vacuum, disconnected from your external state. If you genuinely feel taken advantage of, no amount of self-delusion is going to make you truly over it, until you acknowledge the source of it, and take steps to protect yourself against it in the future.

Very easy to over-extend stoicism to your own detriment, physically and mentally.

Thank you for clarifying.

That does compute with what I thought the "Rationalist" movement as covered by the article was about. I didn't peg them as pure a priori thinkers as you put it. I suppose my comment still holds, assuming the rationalist in this context refers to the version of "Rationalism" being discussed in the article as opposed to the traditional one.