There are many easier ways to effect this social change, if you’re willing to do basic legislation around the vehicle itself.
The easiest way to decrease unnecessary oversized vehicles, frankly, is to require them be painted pink and flowery. Many men in America pick big vehicles as they're perceived as masculine, and a basic paint job to attack this psychological would probably work.
Less jokingly, add mechanical speed limits to them. Big heavy vehicles are extremely dangerous, but that danger is closely related to speed.
Other options include adding excessive cameras and radar equipment, so the front of the vehicle isn’t a blind spot. Cars have plenty of cameras and mirrors already, so it’s not novel to drivers. It’s a missed opportunity already since this could really be implemented by major manufacturers within a year.
The danger is not just related to speed, it’s about them being sp large that you can’t physically see the old lady or child walking right in front of it
When I drive a pickup it’s typically for work purposes. I would not care one whit if it had pink flowers and neither would anyone else. If anything it would make it higher visibility.
As far as a speed limit… what governed speed are you proposing? Being in a pickup pulling a trailer already makes you a cop magnet, and I never go even 1 MPH over the limit. It’s already expensive enough fuel economy wise and they aren’t exactly vehicles with fast acceleration.
Incidentally of people I know who have died in vehicle accidents recently (last 5 years) all of them were because they got hit by a large commercial truck (typically 35 tonnes). One died when he crashed his motorcycle. That’s it.
I don’t think there’s any strict reason they can’t from their contract. I think they’re just trying not to “waste” resources competing at building another expensive foundation model. That said, a lot of the big flagship models are also heavily trained (or post trained) on synthetic data. Microsoft has done a lot of application-specific fine tuning research.
This model in particular makes sense to be synthetic though. It’s explicitly trained to control a computer, and I doubt there’s a large enough amount of public training data on this use case.
I suspect that Chinese models are largely forced to open source as a trust building step because of general China-phobia in the west. There’s tons of stellar LLMs available from major US companies if you’re just using an API. It’s also a convenient marketing and differentiation opportunity. Some of the companies behind the bigger “agentic” models have started to offer a cheap subscription alternative to US companies. If they build up a big enough business I wouldn’t be surprised if they stop open sourcing right away.
> I suspect that Chinese models are largely forced to open source as a trust building step because of general China-phobia in the west.
They're late to the game so they're pressuring Western competitors on price by taking advantage of their lowest costs while catching up. Now they are well prepared to lead in the next front: robotics.
Apple said from the day that they made lightning cables that it would be supported for 10 years. They literally contractually guaranteed that to third party manufacturers in exchange for them creating a massive availability of cables for Apple users.
The EU “forced them” to switch to the standard they helped develop (USB C) on the 11th year after developing lighting. I’m sure it was all the EUs doing.
I haven't seen Apple say anything like that, all I saw were analysts saying that Apple's long term commitment to the format meant that you could expect a decade or so of lifetime like the previous 30pin connector.
Apple argues that the law was dumb environmentally due to many people having Lightning-cables that wouldn't work in the future, so they obviously can't have intended to do the same changeover at the same time as the EU forced them to
That was hilarious, as though Lightning cables on average outlasted the devices they were used with. Meanwhile in the real world, Apple’s delicate “strain relief” started to fray and tear in 6-12 months of use, and thanks to their weird unnecessary DRM chip for MFi enforcement, third-party Lightning cables tended to become flaky for purely DRM reasons in a few months.
Show me anyone who had more than a couple of working Lightning cables left when they eliminated their last Lightning device.
There are many things they do which Apple argues benefits their users, but end up benefitting themselves in suspiciously manipulative ways.
I'm not shocked they entered a 10 year contractual agreement, and that just so happened to allow them to make a lot of profit by using a proprietary cable.
They lock down individual parts to device serial numbers, this helps prevent fraudulent repair services with poor quality parts, it also ensures Apple is always involved in the repair process and they can make a lot of money on that.
They use a proprietary RAM design, this significantly improves hardware speeds but also stops you replacing or upgrading the modules yourself. They also just happen to charge a serious premium on RAM capacity, and don't sell the modules on their own. Even if a third-party did manufacture the modules and sell them separately, they are also locked down to serial numbers.
This is Apple's bread and butter, enforcing consumer hostile practices and spinning it into a benefit, usually filled with half-truths to muddy the waters. In all of these situations, it's possible to do better by the consumer but why would they? At the end of the day they're here to make money, as much as they possibly can, and they're uncontested in their own vender hardware, doesn't mean we shouldn't call them out for their awful practices every time they appear.
And if that’s too little, the company should go under and make room for a company with the cash flow to pay people a salary high enough to accept the job offer.
If they’ve securitized and sold their data center buildout, will the big clouds and AI labs actually face any severe impact? While the sums are huge, most of these companies have the cash on hand to pay down the debt. The big AI labs have said their models earn enough to cover the cost to train themselves, just not the next one. This means they could at any time walk away from the compute spend for training.
With the heavy securitization of all these deals, will the “bubble pop” just hurt the financial industry?
If a company like CoreWeaver sees their SPV for a Microsoft-specific data center go bankrupt, that means MSFT decided to walk away from the deal. Red flag for the industry, but also a sign of fiscal restraint. Someone else can swoop in and buy the DC for cheap, while MSFT avoids the Opex hit. Seems like the losers will be whoever bought that SPV debt, which probably isn’t a tech company.
Right, insurance companies are the new "financial dark matter". The next financial crisis will probably be triggered when a few large life and property insurers fail because they purchased debt assets which were highly rated but turn out to be junk. (Medical and auto insurers aren't exposed here because they operate on much shorter timeframes.)
I agree what you’ve listed makes sense as a product portfolio.
But AI Studio is getting vibe coding tools. AI Studio also has a API that competes with Vertex. They have IDE plugins for existing IDEs to expose Chat, Agents, etc. They also have Gemini CLI for when those don’t work. There is also Firebase Studio, a browser based IDE for vibe coding. Jules, a browser based code agent orchestration tool. Opal, a node-based tool to build AI… things? Stich, a tool to build UIs. Colab with AI for a different type of coding. Notebook LM for AI research (many features now available in Gemini App). AI Overviews and AI mode in search, which now feature a generic chat interface.
Thats just new stuff, and not including all the existing products (Gmail, Home) that have Gemini added.
This is the benefit of a big company vs startups. They can build out a product for every type of user and every user journey, at once.
Thanks for the reminder to put a pride flag on my new work computer. Can't for the life of me figure out why it'd be divisive though.
Also, why do you assume these aren't people's personal computers? Many people surely own computers personally, and of course people can express themselves on personal property.
Well he wrote a memo saying the women at Google were "neurotic" and that's why women biologically are predisposed to not be software engineers.
If that's conservative ideology, then I guess it is fair to say such ideology might not be appropriate for a workplace. In reality, he just said stupid stuff to be provocative, and tried to post-hoc justify it as vilifying conservatives instead.
I'm on the same boat. It's well designed, works great, and I really can't get it out of my head as a well-engineered project and great idea.
But it really is nearly abandoned, and outside of the happy-path the primary author uses it for, it's desolate. There is no community around growing its usage, and pull requests have sat around for months before the maintainer replies. Which is fine if that's what the author wants (he's quite busy!), but disappointing to potential adopters. I've looked at using it, but with data types that sit outside the author's use case, and you'd really need to fork it and change code all over the repo to effectively use it. It just never hit the ideal of "store everything" it promises when it has hard-coded data types for indexing and system support.
(and yes, I did look at forking it and creating my own indexer, but some things just aren't meant to be)
I've seen an uptick in LLM generated bug reports from coworkers. A employee of my company (but not someone I work with regularly) used one of the CLI LLMs to search through logs for errors, and then automatically cut (hundreds!) of bugs to (sometimes) the correct teams. Turns out it was the result of some manager's mandate to "try integrating AI into our workflow". The resulting email was probably the least professional communication I've ever sent, but the message was received.
The only solution I can see is a hard-no policy. If I think this bug is AI, either by content or by reputation, I close without any investigation. If you want it re-opened, you'll need to IRL prove its genuine in an educated, good-faith approach that involves independent efforts to debug.
> "If you put your name on AI slop once, I'll assume anything with your name on it is (ignorable) slop, so consider if that is professionally advantageous".
IF you want LLM code reviews, there are bots for codex, copilot, claude etc that plug straight into Github PRs and review the code automatically.
Some of them are actually useful, some just plain wrong and some are subtly wrong and you need to spend some time figuring out whether it's right or wrong :)
IMO it's still a net positive because LLMs tend to pick up really weird subtle errors that humans easily gloss over.
Alas this is an issue of LLM generated code. Increased productivity but lessened understanding. If you can increase productivity while also increasing understanding then that will be a decent middle ground.
The easiest way to decrease unnecessary oversized vehicles, frankly, is to require them be painted pink and flowery. Many men in America pick big vehicles as they're perceived as masculine, and a basic paint job to attack this psychological would probably work.
Less jokingly, add mechanical speed limits to them. Big heavy vehicles are extremely dangerous, but that danger is closely related to speed.
Other options include adding excessive cameras and radar equipment, so the front of the vehicle isn’t a blind spot. Cars have plenty of cameras and mirrors already, so it’s not novel to drivers. It’s a missed opportunity already since this could really be implemented by major manufacturers within a year.
reply