kirklennon @ kirklennon @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

333

Joined

2 yr. ago

The article is based on vague claims from anonymous sources. If the claims about AI don’t make sense to begin with (and they don’t because Apple isn’t involved in any of the stuff that he might reasonably criticize), that doesn’t make me think they knew what they were talking about regarding China either. If the source is disreputable, who cares what they said? If you make two claims and one doesn’t pass the smell test, I’m not going to waste time entertaining what really happened regarding the second claim.

Let me put it another way: there are too many real, verifiable outrageous things going on in the world for me to get my pitchfork out for something as weak on sourcing and details as this. Business agreements end for lots of reasons, and often a combination. People often have an axe to grind, especially if they were somehow involved in a deal that went south. This isn’t nearly enough for me to make any judgment.

You don’t need to install anything. I bought a new Brother printer and went from opening the box to printing wirelessly in a literally few minutes. Use the Wi-Fi Protected Setup button on the router (two arrows curving toward each other) to connect the printer to the router. In the Mac, go to Printer & Scanners in the Settings app. Click the add printer button and select the printer, which it will automatically find. It’ll take a few seconds and then it’s setup and ready to print. This whole process is super easy.

It’s a good line in what is otherwise a very, very bad SCOTUS decision that a for-profit corporation can ignore laws protecting female employees because of the corporation’s religious beliefs.

Even taken at its face value, this allegation is literally an example of freedom of the press in action. Freedom means the ability for a publisher to choose what they publish. That includes telling staff no.

It’s the same reason why Twitter had to agree to the sale to Elon Musk and why they had to force it. It was a terrible move overall but since Elon was buying all outstanding shares and taking it private, the board literally had no legal choice but to take it since he was offering well over market value.

It was put to an actual shareholder vote. The individual shareholders voted yes because he was overpaying. The board was fundamentally irrelevant.

I’m seeing a lot of anonymous quotes and assumptions but not a lot of verifiable facts. Sure, creative differences may have existed, but did any meaningful number of people watch the show? Even in online communities dedicated to Apple TV specifically I can’t recall seeing anything other than perfunctory mentions. Nobody ever actually talked about this show. I feel like the show was probably already on thin ice with a questionable ROI, and some likely not terribly sensational disagreement pushed it over the edge. Makes more sense than Apple caring what he says about AI, since they’ve pointedly avoided the embarrassing hype train, and clearly aren’t going to engage in the sort of exploitative “all of your documents are now our training corpus” nonsense that he’s likely to actually criticize.

That’s analogous to a conservative commentor saying, “an easy solution would be a few Democrats voting for Jordan.”

I'm pretty sure that was exactly the point. There have been endless articles asking if Democrats will step in to help Republicans out of the mess they created by voting for a marginally less extreme Republican. This person was flipping that nonsense around and asking why a handful of Republicans can't just vote for someone who actually wants to govern.

There’s been no indication at all that the savings accounts themselves are unprofitable. This article combined a journalistically negligent misquote from a single person at the internal announcement of the savings accounts with fuzzy numbers about previous provisions for future losses from the credit card. If they had any integrity, they’d just delete the whole article.

The article doesn't actually have any data at all regarding the savings accounts. It combines losses on credit cards with a pessimistic quote from someone at the launch of the savings accounts. The credit card losses also look worse than they are. Goldman Sachs definitely seems to think they made a mistake, so I don't doubt they're losing money, but the numbers themselves are primarily paper "losses." They're setting aside a huge amount of money for theoretical future defaults on repayment. My understanding is the numbers are extra high right now precisely because they're brand new and haven't previously been provisioning for future losses. I don't know the exact numbers involved but it seems like they're recording extra losses last year and this year that would cover several years of future losses (cynically, I'm just going to assume this is some sort of strategic tax dodge).

The headline isn't an accurate quote. 9to5Mac, quoting the Wall Street Journal:

When Goldman Sachs and Apple launched their joint savings account in April, Goldman held a town hall at its headquarters, where bank executives talked it up. One executive had a different message shortly afterward. “We should have never done this f—ing thing,” the Goldman partner told colleagues.

"Mistake" isn't actually even part of the quote. The headline also implies that this is an observation made by looking back on it, rather than a comment made at launch by someone who may not have even been involved in the project.

Thanks for checking!

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that the recent review looked only at oral usage and made no determination on its efficacy as a nasal spray.

They say they contain a combination of paracetamol, phenylephrine hydrochloride, and caffeine.

Incidentally, the US FDA has just completed updated studies on phenylephrine, more rigorous than when it was first introduced, and determined that when taken orally it is fully metabolized before it makes it to the sinuses and is completely ineffective. It's going to disappear from shelves soon.

Just to be clear, I didn't think that you were being offensive. It came across entirely as a good faith question from a foreigner, but it ties into (ironically arrogant) advocacy from some foreigners who call Americans arrogant for using the term American.

Telling people what they're allowed to be offended by is usually a bad choice.

Let em call me whatever they want in whatever language they have.

That's not what this is about though, which is precisely the point. In other languages, "America" means something else, and they all have other terms to refer to people from the US. The whole discussion is about what Americans should be called in English.

The proper term is American.

everybody born in the american continent is technically “american” too

The implied context of your question is in English.. In the English-speaking world, there is no American continent. People from North America are North Americans; people from South America are South Americans. People from the United States of America are American. There is no ambiguity. There is also no good term to collectively describe everyone from the Americas but there’s also rarely any need to discuss that.

I consider terms such as “USonian” and whatnot to be highly offensive. Nobody should tell a people what they are allowed to call themselves in their own language just because the same word means something else in another language. It would be like telling French people they’re not allowed to call their arm a bras because it refers to an article of clothing in English. Other languages where America means something else already have their own terms for people from the US. English, however, has no real ambiguity except that caused by those trying to shame Americans for calling themselves Americans.

In the meantime, LLMs have changed the game when it comes to language understanding

I don’t think this is true at all, nor do I think we’re any closer than we were several years ago. LLMs don’t understand anything at all. Given a prompt, they assemble portions of words into something that is likely to resemble what a desired response might look like, based on whatever corpus of text they’ve been fed.

They do not actually comprehend the question and then answer it.

Siri actually answers questions using a curated knowledge database. If it doesn’t have an answer, it doesn’t pretend to have. LLMs don’t really have a concept of knowing the answer or not knowing the answer since they’re not based around a repository of facts in the first place. If they have enough training data to assemble something that looks like a response that answers it, they’ll output that response. Whether it’s true or not isn’t even relevant to how they work.

If I ask Siri a question, I want the response to be reliable, or just tell me it doesn’t know. If I ask it to complete a specific task, it needs to have been programmed for that task anyway, so LLMs don’t add anything there. Either it recognizes (meaning matches keywords in its database of functions) a task it knows how to do or it doesn’t.

It can always gain new functions or new knowledge sources, but none of that involves adding a bullshit generator.

Google and Samsung had to build and rollout safety features because Apple didn’t care for Android users.

The feature needs to be built into the operating system. Apple and Google worked together on a specification for unwanted trackers that's now built into Android.

I wonder if Apple could give an option for the anti stalking to android.

Apple and Google collaborated on a specification for this and anti-stalking rolled out to Android in August.

Visa and Mastercard are not card issuers.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that but you said "banks and credit card companies" so I also included, well, credit card companies.

This article provides details of why Delaware is attractive to banks

The article points out that all of those paperwork incorporations of companies that are nominally based in Delaware don't equate to that many jobs because the companies are actually based elsewhere. Delaware is a bit player in the banking industry.

Anyway, this is veering way off topic. The point is that Biden did not make student loans bankruptcy-proof. You can't attribute bipartisan legislation to a single non-sponsor, minority-party member who happened to vote for it. I don't care if he changed his middle name to "I love big banks." The original statement was still ridiculous.