which includes the name of the company and its products, logos and images of technological equipment, as well as direct mentions of them in advertising pieces,
This makes it sound like he shouldn't even use the name of the products, which would be ridiculous. How do you advertise iPhone repair if you cannot use the term iPhone, or pictures of the specific models?
The article doesn't link to any of the materials, so I can't say whether they are actually misleading (using Apple's name and logo could be easily avoided) or not.
I still see fake download button ads distributed via Google's own ad infrastructure to this day. I even reported a few that were taken down.
For all the AI prowess Google likes to brag about, why can't they make a simple "does this look like a download button?" detector? The scams are not that clever, most of them follow one of a small number of specific patterns.
You need to look at this from a practical standpoint.
The vast majority of phone apps are not local-only. They are merely the frontend to services provided by some company - e.g. a Reddit app is really about Reddit the service, a food delivery app is about the service, not the locally running code, etc.
Apple controls what users can and cannot install on devices made by them, but the web and things like PWA are an alternative that would be viable for some portion of these.
You can make a web app that can be added as an icon on the homescreen, can access the camera, location, notifications, storage, authentication (e.g. require fingerprint), etc. It still can't do everything native apps can do, but it would be good enough for a good portion of popular apps.
But in China, that is not really possible without the government's approval either, because China requires the same kind of registration and an ICP license for websites, otherwise things will get blocked. Which, even if you could install anything you want on a device, would effectively limit you to purely local-only apps anyway.
My reaction to this is still - how the hell did they need close to 500 people?
This kind of service should be a very thin layer between the creator and the viewers, there is no need for any additional crap that a middleman company tries to provide. Plenty of other services can do the same for much cheaper.
But a free market solution would be the airport increasing its prices until the demand at those prices matches how much capacity they have (and probably a push to add more capacity, or a build a new airport nearby, etc.)
The problem from Australia's point of view is probably that this could cause their own airlines to be out-competed by foreign ones, or it could reduce the number of destinations where flights are viable, etc.
But wouldn't a more free market in this case let them do more direct flights to Melbourne without requiring the extra leg?
The extra leg is only added to get around a specific kind of regulation of the market (limiting how many flights they can do with Melbourne as a destination), it wouldn't exist otherwise.
Now, there was a paper that instantiated a couple dozen LLMs and had them run a virtual software dev company together which got pretty good results
Dude, you need to take a closer look at that paper you linked, if you consider that "pretty good results". They have a github repo with screenshots of some of the "products", which should give you some idea https://github.com/OpenBMB/ChatDev/tree/main/misc .
Not to mention the terrible decision making of the fake company (desktop app you have to download? no web/mobile version? for a virtual board game?)
(Also the paper never even tried to prove its main hypothesis, that all this multi agent song and dance would somehow reduce hallucinations and improve performance. There is a lot of good AI stuff coming out daily, but that particular paper - and the articles reporting on it - was pure garbage.)
If it were that easy, this would have been solved everywhere already. A day or two is almost certainly not enough, you also have to do adjacent apartments (whose inhabitants probably aren't going to be very happy, especially if they have to leave for the fifth time), your map can show that it affects like every other building (especially when it's a large apartment block), the temporary housing is at risk of becoming infested too, which will make people fear being there, etc.
It actually sounds a lot like zero covid - simple on paper, you try it, you find out it doesn't really work, and then you're left with the choice to either change strategy or try to go harder and cram it through regardless.
True, as of today. On the other hand, future advancements could very easily change that. On the other other hand, people have been saying the same about self driving cars 10 years ago, and while they do basically work, and are coming eventually, progress there has been a lot slower than predicted.
On one hand, this is definitely a gap, on the other hand, you are very unlikely to run into it in practice.
The whole "pass an array/object into some function that will mutate it for you" pattern is not very popular in JS , you are much more likely to encounter code that just gives you a new array as a return value and treats its arguments as read-only.
If you validate your data at the boundaries where it enters your system (e.g. incoming JSON from HTTP responses), TypeScript is plenty good enough for almost all practical uses.
This may actually be one of those things where it turns out to be worth it (for them anyway), if they can get some major technological advancements out of it.
There are so many other things in the world that are way more wasteful and way more pointless.
Ok, so Facebook knows I have a VR headset and bought some games, and they're using that information in targeted advertising (as much as things like EU law allows them where I live)? Quite frankly, I don't care - this doesn't really affect me in any practical sense - and again, thanks to existing laws, I can actually opt out from a large part of it.
From a practical standpoint, I would have a much bigger problem with a situation that exists with Google, where some people had access to their email and other services disabled, because some stupid bot classified their comments in YouTube livestream as spam with basically no recourse until the story blew up in tech news (https://gamerant.com/markiplier-stream-ban-lock-users-out-of-gmail/). The root of the issue there is that those accounts just shouldn't be linked, and what you do on YouTube shouldn't affect your access to your own email etc.
You may argue that this is simply down to the fact that Facebook doesn't have a strong enough market position to get away with such practices, and that they would do it too if they could, but as it stand today, the giants like Google or Apple are far worse. (And with most of these problems, as well as other monopolistic practices of tech giants, regulation can be a large part of the solution.)
Steam - you need Steam account (also applies to Valve Index then)
iPhone - you need Apple account
Android phones - you need Google account
Oculus before - you needed an Oculus account
The short time during which they required a Facebook account (i.e. an account linked to an unrelated service) was a fuck-up, but they have since reversed that decision. Now it's just a separate standalone VR-related account.
If anything, that is still better than the current Google/Apple situation with their accounts, which link together a bunch of unrelated services (photos, email, payments, storage sync, etc.) in an inseparable way.
From the article
This makes it sound like he shouldn't even use the name of the products, which would be ridiculous. How do you advertise iPhone repair if you cannot use the term iPhone, or pictures of the specific models?
The article doesn't link to any of the materials, so I can't say whether they are actually misleading (using Apple's name and logo could be easily avoided) or not.