They have multiple tiers of service. The whole point of this was to allow "power users" to access more tokens. If someone upgraded to a $200/month Max subscription it's because they're a power user.
I guess if Copilot were actually a singular entity that had all of these touch points and a decent security model to prevent unintentionally exposing your data - it would be pretty cool.
Maybe the problem isn't the teens. Bullying is bullying no matter where it happens.
Profiting via dark patterns is despicable, whether it's preying on teens or the elderly. How many elderly people are fed distorted, sensational news and believe it wholesale? At least our teens have learned to be skeptics.
Instead of punishing the innocent to gatekeep a system that is one of the most important innovations in history, maybe we should focus on the root cause: the crappified, ad-based internet that glorifies "clicks" above all else.
We might have to face the fact that "free" accounts have become too expensive. If the cost of a free internet is a business model that monetizes outrage and addiction, it's not working. I don't love the idea of paid-only access or enforced identity, but applying a single standard to everyone might be better than what we have now.
I still believe in the free internet, and I know what I want to do to build it: Make excellent content. Teach good things.
I want to prove the value of an open and positive system.
The fun part is that it's actually 3 executables in a single file. Meaning there is no particular reason it should have the same program on each platform.
Most immediate advantage is latency for space-based Internet relay. I can see a market for low latency /real time applications. I think the issue here is that we have to re-think what "the edge" means here, since locality of data is literally changing by the second. Maybe a by-space-for-space data service?
An interesting question is data sovereignty. Whose jurisdiction does it fall under? Relay-focused satellites sort of skirt around the issue, but a orbital data center is going to be different.
Integrating AlterEgo with the next generation of AR glasses could be the next generation of technology after these electronic bricks we carry in our pockets. My biggest frustration with wake-word assistants is that voice is inherently a broadcast channel.
There’s endless comedy about the confusion on a bus when someone's talking into Bluetooth and their neighbor thinks they’re being addressed. Silent Sense + AR gets your eyes up and around you, fixes posture, frees your hands and keeps the guy next to you out of the conversation.
> Under the law, companies that make cellphones and other consumer electronics are required to provide the tools and know-how to repair those devices.
1. Do you think the Oregon law fell short by not requiring industrial electronics to be repairable as well?
2. Will the proliferation of tools and know-how for repair be sufficient to meaningfully extend the life of most electronics?
3. Is legal mandate sufficient or necessary to motivate companies to open their chests to the public? Or is a voluntary movement possible that still rewards the stakeholders?
My hope is that projects like Atlas will be sustainable and prices eventually come down to commodity levels - say the price scale of cars. If people are empowered with tools to develop on these machines in a safe way, I think we could see a revolution similar to the cell phone or PC. My fear is that these machines will become just an extra inefficient automation step in an overpriced supply chain one-off application.
Respect this opinion, but concerned that it's a limiting one.
In my opinion, repair and maintenance is the most commonly overlooked aspect of an automated system deployment. Scaling is impossible without efficient tools to fix problems when they occur, especially if the number of authorized service people is limited.
The more serviceability can be automated and standardized, the greater the number of areas that will benefit from widespread robotics.
As we enter an era of wide scale robotic deployment, we need to think long and hard about what the maintenance bottleneck will look like. We need to advocate now for reliable and open upgrades, replacement parts, service documentation, and diagnostics.
Right to repair will be even more important for this technology than autos or general computing.
Their existing product line is marketed on their patent background [^1]. The questions you're asking seem to resonate with a certain skepticism I have observed repeatedly in related situations. This is why I am wondering if anyone is seriously considering alternative models. It seems someone in this audience is likely to know of such a proposal if any exists.
That's the narrative I am gathering from the comments here. Is it possible to realign incentives to promote cooperation instead? I understand this kind of restructuring would generate huge turbulence and resistance from entrenched players - but if it's possible to use the patent system for collaboration instead of market exclusion, the resulting net benefit to inventors/researchers, manufacturing and the general public might be worth it.
I wonder if it is time to re-think the way patents work in an age of highly integrated devices. In this case, it seems like Apple and Masimo could have worked together to deliver a stellar product that promoted both inventor rights and benefited the public. Instead, both companies are suffering, and the public loses access to a technology.
Perhaps the public should buy the Masimo watch if they appreciate the specific advantages of the specific pulse oximetry technology at question here. While that may satisfy a small percentage of customers whose primary motive is that specific feature, the majority of people I know wouldn't consider that a valid option, since they like the integration with the "apple ecosystem", or similar reasons.
Would it be possible to separate end products from component technology in a way that prevents this? Perhaps by tracking an accounting line for patents internally, then pushing for legislation which requires patent-cost -> end product cost transparency?
This is why I want to see micro-fabrication become ubiquitous. I believe a massive economic revolution that vastly improves our world is possible. I think this is a world where smaller manufacturers can compete with giant foundries, but it depends on
1) automation of small-scale raw-resource production (mining, plant materials, or even better yet, recycling for raw resources.)
2) a massive investment in micro-fabricator processes (not just 3-d printing, but modular and high-quality output of formed metals, textiles and even electronics that doesn't require hours of mucking with calibration.)
3) Replacing business-to-business-only networks with a blurred business-to-business-or-consumer one, where locally produced materials can be just-in-time committed, produced and shipped to either customers, small, in-situ manufacturers or repairmen, or even another manufacturer for advanced finishing of intermediate goods.
If the rescue operation is to cost nearly 2x the expected value of the oil, why is the UN still promising the revenue of the oil sale to the warring Yemeni parties that have caused this crisis? It seems that at least the sale price of the oil should go towards it's cleanup.
Reading through the white paper leaves me feeling that some commenters here may have had an axe to grind already. The positions raised by OpenAI seemed to be focused on tailoring overly-broad language, and curtailing phrasing which confused possibility of misuse for intent to misuse.
The ai regulations have the possibility of becoming a GDPR-like boondoggle in the absence of domain-expertise from people in the field.
Researchers without a conflict of interest should also be heavily be engaged in this dialog as well, and the law specifically made flexible enough to adapt in the face of rapid change.
n prefix to indicate negative is a strange choice. I suspect it will have unwanted repercussions, i.e. what about a variable named `n`?
I'll admit though, I'd never really considered that overloading the dash symbol to mean so many things was strange until I read this. It still seems like inventing a new nomenclature for negative numbers is a bit reaching for spreadsheet software.
edit
I'm not sure I understand what problem is being solved here either. What does negative spreadsheet indexes give us that positive-only indexes didn't?
edit 2 None of this is to downplay what OP & co is doing here. I'm hugely thankful for the community behind any effort to open source key pieces of technology. I don't use spreadsheets on a regular basis, but when I do, I am always impressed by their ability to flexibly solve problems. Awesome work making this technology modern and open source.
The show is currently a one-off recording doing all the rendering beforehand... But the beauty of what they've done here is that there's nothing preventing someone from doing this for every visitor. Don't like the way this one is generated? Give it your feedback and that can be used to shape the generated output. It was too laid-back chill for my taste, and right now, all i could do is adjust the playback speed. But dev time and money is the only barrier at this point to me having a conversation with the virtual hosts, telling them i like fast paced shows with more depth in the technical areas, and having them change and personalize on the fly -without changing much of what they have already ingested.
I see what you're saying: if you add more startup cost then it makes it harder for spammers without legitimate business interest to profit. I think I disagree, though. Legitimate "mom and pop" businesses experience all the pain of learning the process of setting up a store, creating real products and pricing, inventory, delivery etc. They don't need more friction.
These criminals on the other hand are likely automating everything and have the advantage of lessons learned from dozens of iterations.
The article indicated the mimic sites accept credit card numbers but don't actually process them -- to me that is the Achilles heel of the process. If credit card companies started requiring instantaneous verification of the card's actual use (via a card chip reader or an app on user's phone, for example) instead of allowing payment via static information vulnerable to replay at any time, I think that could do a lot more to improve security of online transactions than green check boxes.
I got my first serious start with hackerboxes. A monthly challenge to make something did much more to open my eyes to the small electronics world than many hours of blandly staring at the guts of old disassembled devices.