Agreed, the Mammotion hardware is amazing - the app is horrible. An open API would solve this as well, but there's little chance with the Chinese owners.
I switched from a Pixel 3a to an iPhone 16 and it really bothers me that it's way too huge for everyday usage. Maybe I have extremely short thumbs but here's the maximum reach I have on the screen when I hold my phone "normally" in my hand: https://i.postimg.cc/Cx97jxLZ/iphone16reach.png - I can't reach the upper part of the screen at all, without doing finger-gymnastics or using my other hand. I'd love to switch to a phone that is 50-60%% of the size of the iPhone 16 but there are essentially no (modern) options for this. It's really a bummer :(
It's clunky and stupid, but if you "swipe down" off the bottom of the screen, it will bring the top half down into the reachable area. That's the fix they chose, instead of making phones that fit in a human's hand.
I have both and they're surprisingly essentially the same size. Except the iPhone has less bezel and is thicker. I only have the iPhone for dev purposes and I actually prefer the Pixel 3a, but I'm afraid it might die soon...
Anyways, are you sure you're talking about the iPhone 16?
Google translate of the official sign definition:
"sign 718 "Sight" refers to the location of tourist objects (sights of interest to tourists, heritage conservation, nature conservation or other objects);"
The spec for machine readable travel documents is sadly not the most concise but if you're interested in the nitty-gritty details of how to validate documents, how to read data from them, etc then jump into ICAO 9303:
But please keep in mind that this is just the spec for how it's supposed to be implemented. Real world implementations of it have lots of creative interpretations of the spec in addition to straight bugs in their implementations, so if you're going to write software that has to work with various different documents issued by various governments, you'll have many fun debugging sessions :)
It seems every country that moves to electronic travel authorization has an app that requires me to verify my passport with this method. I have a fairly new passport, issued in the last few years, and a recent phone… and this process is a huge pain. I need to massage my passport with my phone for a minute, maybe I get a bite, hold it still… oops, start over… try again… okay, use our partner’s face ID recognition service instead… ugh it’s horrible.
I don’t know if the issue is the very low power chip in the passport, or some damage or what… but I dread the process any time I need to do it.
Or id.me, as used by the IRS. "Scan your license, front and back"...
Front, 200dpi, "Unable to find a face in the image". 300dpi, "Unable to find a face in the image". Let's try lower, 72dpi, "Thank you".
Back, let's start at 72dpi, since that worked for the front. "Unable to read a barcode in the image". Higher, 200dpi, "Unable to read a barcode in the image". 300dpi? "Thank you".
Why's it called o3 then if it's a different thing? There's already a rather extreme amount of confusion with the model names and it's not clear _at all_ which model would be "the best" in terms of response quality.
Here's the current state with version numbers as far as I can piece it together (using my best guess at naming of each component of the version identifier. Might be totally wrong tho):
6) date (optional): 2025-04-14, 2024-05-13, 1106, 0613, 0125, etc (I assume the last ones are a date without a year for 2024?)
7) size (optional): "16k"
Some final combinations of these version number components are as small as 1 ("o3") or as large as 6 ("gpt-4o-mini-search-preview-2024-12-17").
Given this mess, I can't blame people assuming that the "best" model is the one with the "biggest" number, which would rank the model families as: 4.5 (best) > 4.1 > 4 > 4o > o4 > 3.5 > o3 > o1 (worst).
o3 pro is based on o3 and its style and outputs will be quite similar to o3.
As an analogy, think of it like this:
o3-low ~ Ford Mustang with the accelerator gently pressed
o3-medium ~ Ford Mustang with the accelerator pressed
o3-high ~ Ford Mustang with the accelerator heavily pressed
o3 pro ~ Ford Mustang GT
Even though a Mustang GT is a different car than a Mustang, you don’t give it a totally different name (eg Palomino). The similarity in name signals it has a lot of the same characteristics but a souped up engine. Same for o3 pro.
Fun fact: before GPT-4, we had a unified naming scheme for models that went {modality}-{size}-{version}, which resulted in names like text-davinci-002. We considered launching GPT-4 as something like text-earhart-001, but since everyone was calling it GPT-4 anyway, we abandoned that system to use the name GPT-4 that everyone had already latched onto. Kind of funny how our original unified naming scheme made room for 999 versions, but we didn't make it past 3.
Edit: When I say the Mustang GT is a different car than a Mustang - I mean it literally. If you bought a Mustang GT and someone delivered a Mustang with a different trim, you wouldn't say "great, this is just what I ordered, with the same features/behavior/value." That we call it a different trim is a linguistic choice to signal to consumers that it's very similar, and built on the same production line, but comes with a different engine or different features. Similar to o3 pro.
Can you elaborate on what you mean that o3 pro is a GT? In particular I don't understand how to reconcile what you're saying that o3 pro is in some way fundamentally different from o3 (albeit based on o3) with this tweet:
> As o3-pro uses the same underlying model as o3, full safety details can be found in the o3 system card.
Yeah, I totally get the confusion here. Unfortunately I can't give the recipe behind our models, so there's going to be some irreducible blurriness here, but the following statements are all true:
- o3 pro is based on o3
- o3 pro uses the same underlying model as o3
- o3 pro is similar to o3, but is a distinct thing that's smarter and slower
- o3 pro is not o3 with longer reasoning
In my analogy, o3 pro vs o3 is more than just an input parameter (e.g., not just the accelerator input) but less than a full difference in model (e.g., Ford Mustang vs F150). It's in between, kind of like car trim with the same body but a stronger engine. Imperfect analogy, and I apologize if this doesn't feel like it adds any clarity. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how it works - what matters is if people find it worth using.
My guess is this comes from an org structure where you have multiple "pods" working on different research. Who comes up with the next shippable model and when that happens is kind of random and the chaotic naming system comes from that. It's just my speculation and could be wildly wrong.
Random anecdote from Estonia. I noticed around a year ago that I'm getting old - I was the only person in a restaurant that used his card to pay - everybody else used either their watch or phone. Since then, I've also upgraded/downgraded and started to use my phone for payments.. just because I don't wanna be _that_ dinosaur.
It's not always like that though - you still have lots of people using credit cards (or rarely cash) in grocery stores etc, but it does seem much more common for _the elderly_, like me, 40+ :P
