yellow_postit

It’s unworkably dysfunctional for “everything” to have to go through congress.

If and when agencies overstep that gets resolved through legal challenges.

Being able to evaluate these changes from online updates is a great result if it holds for more rapid iteration and tuning

There’s rules as written and then rules as followed — I’d much prefer a system that recognizes the rules that people tend to follow/bend/break — as a cyclist I too will often “convoy” with a bigger vehicle as it provides some additional protection most of the time (though obviously not here)

And not a blockchain in sight for this improvement. Looking forward to the US getting something like this for consumers in 10 years (going off the credit card chip progress)

It’s good to remember Apple was forced to switch by the EU for the phone. It was not choice they made on their own.

Largely agree that middle or rather direct managers are often the linchpin to motivation and happiness.

What can be terrible as a middle manager is the inability to address the who gets promoted dynamic. Many the immediate tools are unsatisfying or medium term detrimental.

There’s a clear strategic reason for that — reduce dependence on Google for more vertical integration.

I don’t see the VisionOS play here and wonder if it’ll be Tim Apple’s first major fail at the helm. There’s no clear set of competitors or established industry for Apple to just polish like they have with most products. There’s not an obvious large tam for VR headsets and I’m skeptical optical ar is close. I don’t get it but I’m sure the internal Apple and board view it as a strong thesis.

Still glad it’s this and not a car.

Looking forward to how it plays out.

VisionOS is pretty limited right now and seems like a much larger leap to justify that iPad vs iOS was.

It does seem like malicious and petty compliance on Apples part. But that’s also the expected behavior of a corporation— so the EU just needs to keep up the rule making and clarification.

Apple likes fewer skus and more money. I doubt this split world lasts for too long.

Google, Microsoft and Zoom will all have it integrated soon enough and many companies will pay extra for it because of “security and privacy” guarantees the tech companies will make.

Self driving is going the way of fusion power. Always just a couple years away.

I still believe divided highway trucking between major cities with last mile handoff to humans has legs, but I wonder how much the Tesla claims have poisoned the proverbial well of a more constrained system for the foreseeable future.

I was pleasantly surprised by the Play date and feel ok at this price point taking a bet that this will be an enjoyable novelty.

That’s my point but I may not have made it well. On its own that “feels” high but a better representation would be to look over time and also try to adjust for things like services offered — eg more sports teams likely means more admin.

I don’t know if I’ve seen that dataset though.

Adjust for student body that’s what ~1.5 admin staff per Harvard student and ~2.4 per Ohio state. Both seem crazy on their own but also sensationalized. I’d love to see how this has changed over time and compare school cohorts.

Exactly this is an excuse to centralize more power to Google. Of course they’d rather not take on the work, but if regulators force them to end up in a position where they control even more data? Well, they are begrudgingly happy to oblige.

I saw that too but what data did they train on?

iMessage, apple photos, Siri inputs? These all seem problematic beyond the standard open crawl type datasets. They don’t have a web search corpus.

Apple letting Siri stagnate for so many years is such a shame.

I do wonder what foundation model Apple will eventually use.

Both training their own as well as licensing a 3P one seem at odds with their claimed data privacy stance.

My bet though is a licensed 3p model that’s fine tuned locally with on device data.

It also shows that the privacy campaign is just a business tactic.

That shouldn’t come as a surprise of course, but the Apple reality distortion field is real so I think it’s worth noting.

Right up until they can’t and a new rule gets written in blood. Given the depth perception issues of lights at night this seems like a sane request.

The bigger problems are overworked ATC (fixable) and the utter mess that is SFO design (seems unlikely to fix)

I’d hope this somehow influences regulators too. 15+ months of uncertainty and it’s the tiny UK market that tanks things. The lack of regulatory certainty will push for more lobbying and influence peddling which I think is net worse for the global industry.

Wonder how this shifts funding. VCs won’t get same returns/horizons if companies can’t aim for acquisition exits.

All of the above? It’s been shown that users interacting with the same agent (eg Siri) shift their language over time as they discover and internalize like works. LLMs both on their own and through future advancements will surely do the same. It seems natural to expect a symbiotic coevolution of both the prompter and the promptee’s languages.

The reason we mostly default to separating concerns of data and code is because of all the headaches it avoids. One item on my research wishlist is to bring more constraints like this provable to language models.

SD can’t give indemnification the way Google and Microsoft can.

Wanted to point out that “Just take the decision to not carry those ads” isn’t as easy when you’re at YT scale. Not excusing them but I think we all understand the challenges of content moderation at scale for organic content — now amplify that for paid content where the incentives get even thornier.

Yes YT should invest more in review and policy work — but it’s a forever expanding cost with no silver bullet.

I appreciate there’s a least a price and option for ads-free.

And likely caused more long term harm since if they had to fake this they’re likely further behind

Depends on which impact and horizon you’re talking about. Advancing fundamental research — I’ll give that to Google and Microsoft Research

Advancing products that use AI and getting a consumer/public conversation started? That’s clearly (to me) in OpenAIs court

They’re both impactful, interlinked, and I’m not sure there’s some real stack ranking methodology.

The lack of any projects with meaningful tractions?

I’d bet a bunch actually have at either Google, Microsoft or Meta Research. Microsoft’s had an ok track record recently of letting acquisitions stay pretty independent. The atrophy and cultural reversion to the mean of a large corporation will still happen, but at a slower pace.

If I were Microsoft I’d also look at making it easy to get investment from folks leaving soon after the acquisition through their investment arm.