Experiment how? What on earth could this possibly be useful for?
Experiment how? What on earth could this possibly be useful for?
This post reads like an ad, how is it upvoted so much?
Take a page from the AI companies' book - just claim AI "learned" from the CUDA SDK and call it fair use.
It's also controlled by another crypto shill, so it has that in common with Twitter too.
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.
It's just like a car having an odometer. This would come in handy when buying second-hand, remember all the uncertainty about the condition of used GPUs?
(That is assuming they make the state user-readable though.)
So you have zero evidence that this is actually happening?
If it gives you video from the same channel instantly after blocking, that means nothing, these changes take a while to propagate, YouTube is a distributed system. Give it a few minutes to rebuild the feed and then try.
How are people upvoting this crap?
That's only true for people who don't care about operating lawfully. A big company cannot practically afford to do the same things as some random fly under the radar niche community.
That being said, this is a US company, so that may be a problem.
The ironic thing is that if it weren't for free software, the entire AI industry would likely be a decade behind where it is today, if not more.
Out of context, on its own, it wouldn't be. But if you look at who is pushing it, that changes the picture.
I don't see the US restricting AI development. No matter what is morally right or wrong, this is strategically important, and they won't kneecap themselves in the global competition.
It does - it's also mentioned in the article.
Anything for indent (barely matters, as long as the editor forces it to stay consistent), and fuck alignment, just put things on a new line.
Ironically, the larger market share of macOS (compared to back then), mobile platforms, and the fact that Chrome is now the #1 browser means there's a much weaker case for there being a monopoly now.
This is another "use a black wallpaper to hide the notch" situation. Kinda funny, but ultimately meaningless.
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.
I can kind of see his point, but the things he is suggesting instead (biology, chemistry, finance) don't make sense for several reasons.
Besides the obvious "why couldn't AI just replace those people too" (even though it may take an extra few years), there is also a question of how many people can actually have a deep enough expertise to make meaningful contributions there - if we're talking about a massive increase of the amount of people going into those fields.
I do think it solves an interesting problem where you’re working on your desktop and decide to move to your laptop and continue working on the same codebase, but don’t want to commit early so you can pull down the changes to your laptop.
You can just push the changes to a different branch and then merge it to your normal feature branch later. Takes like 5 seconds.
But if you read all the answers you may find an up to date suggestion in the comments of a non-accepted answer.
Honestly this is not bad, if it solves your problem and it took less than 10 minutes of reading overall.
Plus you gain some understanding along the way, about why the other answers aren't going to solve your problem, which is also valuable.
There used to be a "loophole", where if you changed to a different plan, it restarted the 7 day period during which you could cancel with no fee. Not sure if they ever changed that though.
I keep hearing how good AI is at coding these days, why can't they just use it to rewrite all the model and library code up to full AMD support?
/s
Not directly related, but you can disable chat history per-device in ChatGPT settings - that will also stop OpenAI from training on your inputs, at least that's what they say.
That seems like a silly argument to me. A bit like claiming a piracy site is not responsible for hosting an unlicensed movie because you have to search for the movie to find it there.
(Or to be more precise, where you would have to upload a few seconds of the movie's trailer to get the whole movie.)
Those are called "gen alpha" these days.
A lot of people think they have empathy, but for many of them it's very limited when it comes to other people who are not similar enough to the person themselves (or people close to them). E.g. people from a different background or socioeconomic class.
Empathy often ends wherever a person's perceived "tribe" ends.
It would be fine if the footage was end-to-end encrypted, meaning you need to transfer the encryption/decryption keys from device (e.g. a phone) to camera, and then manually between all devices that should have access to the decrypted footage.
Camera would only ever send out encrypted footage, and thus it would be insufficient to have access to the cloud account if you want to view the footage - you would need both access to the account (to obtain the encrypted data) and the decryption key (to actually decrypt it). The decryption key must never reach any 3rd party servers and can only be manually transferred between devices that should have access.
There are still possible attack vectors, like malicious firmware updates, or the viewer client app updates, but those are very difficult to exploit, and pretty much exist in most "secure" software today (including from companies like Google, Apple, Meta, etc.). They could be mitigated by hardware design (do the encryption in hardware, camera's software never has access to decrypted footage) and open source viewer clients that the user controls, but I would consider a camera sufficiently secure (for non-sensitive locations) without those.
This is exactly the point made in this 2010 article that's probably one of the things I link to most often in online discussions.
https://whatheco.de/2010/12/07/function-hell/
Also, the real problem with code on the right in OP is all the state mutations made to the arguments passed into the functions.
Not too familiar with golang, but this really could use some sort of builder pattern or something, if you're going to mutate the object. Or a more functional style with just a pure function mapping an input "order" to output "toppings", etc.
There are plenty of ways to make the bad design on the right better without stuffing everything into a single function, so the whole premise is a bit of a false dichotomy.
I mean, 30% is what Apple charges for regular apps and all in-app purchases/subscriptions too.
It's just inherently suspicious, because there is no valid technical reason to do it that way (things just end up being more complicated, more expensive, etc., for no benefit, not to mention the brand damage), unless you have some future plans for it that will involve crypto/NFT crap. The fact that MrBeast has a history with NFTs also doesn't help.
Or course it's still pure speculation.
Have they explained why they chose to use it in some plausible way?
On Reddit, joke (usually bad joke, low effort meme or pop culture reference) comments were the absolute worst kind of spam that destroyed the readability of comment threads.
That sort of content belongs in its own space, not polluting places that are still worth reading.
Seatbelts I don't really care about, because with that people mostly just affect themselves (or others in the same car), but for other infractions it makes sense.
The real issue is whether you can trust that the data will only be used for its intended purpose, as right now there are basically no good mechanisms to prevent misuse.
If we had cameras where you could somehow guarantee that - no access for reason other than stated, only when flagged or otherwise by court order, all access to footage logged with the audit log being publicly available, independent system flagging suspicious accesses to any footage, etc. - it wouldn't be too bad.
Compared to all the private cameras that exist in cars these days...
Can you post any source at all that would back your claims? Or any technical details at all?
Neither the actual proposal https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md#what-information-is-in-the-signed-attestation, nor the article itself seem to show that there would be a difference when it comes to privacy.
The entire problem with this proposal is that it limits client choice, similar to how Google Play integrity API on Android restricts some apps from running on rooted/unlocked phones.
That same problem obviously also exists in Apple's implementation.
For these kind of generic questions, ChatGPT is great at giving you the common fluff you'd find in a random "10 ways to improve your career" youtube video.
Which may still be useful advice, but you can probably already guess what it's going to say before hitting enter.
Not like that, lol
Just saying, instead of this monstrosity
CreateOrderRequest(user,
productDetails,
pricingCalculator,
order => order.internalNumber)
Just use
CreateOrderRequest(
user,
...
Putting the first argument on a separate line.
Same if you have an if using a bunch of and (one condition per line, first one on a new line instead of same line as the if) and similar situations.
Flash was pretty significant in the web's journey to where it is today. For things like online video, it was the least pain in the ass way, in a time when the alternative was crapware plug-ins like RealPlayer, QuickTime, or Windows Media Player.
YouTube probably wouldn't have existed without Flash and FLV.
If AI gets really good, manual labor automation won't be far behind, as the AI itself will be applied to robotics and AI research.
The only thing of value left will be natural resources.
The right way to implement this is where they don't even have any persistent identifier that could be used for tracking. They should only ever see a derived single-use signature that after verification gives them a yes/no answer and nothing more.
not having its AI efforts actually change product usage
Are you ignoring Github Copilot?
They're the same as any other megacorp, no better or worse.
There are two things (or two aspects of the same one problem) I dislike about them specifically though:
The Google account bundles together too many disparate services - which means if their bots decide to arbitrarily block you for some reason, that affects your email, photo backup, YouTube account, Drive, phone, docs, etc.
They have no usable support. Whenever something bad happens, your only recourse is to complain about it on Twitter and hope it blows up enough that someone with power to change things will notice it and manually review the decision. Otherwise you're stuck in bot support hell. Many such cases.
Usually when you don't have internet access, it's because you don't have any signal at all.