HN user
I have tried the word you mentioned along with few other words together and there were no issues.
It doesn't have to be a replacement. Anyone who has ever been in the physical presence of an expert reciting sanskrit verses knows that this can never replace that experience.
It will only make the language and the chants more accessible.
I think complex Sanskrit words are difficult to roll off the tongue and pronounce if read in a dry manner specially if you don't already know the words or meaning, which unfortunately is true for the majority out there who want to read them, including myself.
Having a spoken reference that too as a chant makes it easy to recite the verses.
The debate should have been about why there is even a "standard" tip not what the standard percentage is.
I think the vocal minority advocating for tipping are probably the ones that receive (unaccountable) higher tips while the ones that are scraping by would actually feel more comfortable with a good wage than unpredictable tips.
Customer focus means not just resolving issues or having a reachable customer service, it can also be pre-empting the need to reach out to customer service by making the product issue free as much as possible.
Gmail in its early stage had a simple surface area. These days a Google account could mean a gateway to entire digital life for some. It requires much more focus and responsibility to handle and Google never had plans to do any of that from the beginning.
card acceptance has gone _up_ in my experience.
Yes acceptance may have gone up, but I think thats a side effect of normalizing digital transactions popularized by UPI.
Just thinking like if something doesn't grow in winter, is it because of lack of plant's adaptation or is it because their primary vector for seed dispersal hasn't adapted to survive in that weather or may be because it is not safe to consume in that season.
Or simply put, can wild animals eat tomatoes safely(on evolutionary timescale) in winter if they don't normally grow in winter.
Makes sense but honestly if you've spent more time testing and working around the nuances to build consistent experience doesn't it mean you actually need more standardization to easily switch models if/when your trusted model is not viable for you provider?
It doesn't even have to be censorship of speech.
If you are wrongly charged a significant amount by either Google or Apple and their service is of no help, what would you do?
Most people would weigh the options, then just eat the cost than anger them with a chargeback and lose their email/phone access. That's self-censorship financially too.
What if Google reinstates their old G+ and YouTube real name policy for its accounts. We would protest but give them the proof grudgingly and it can position itself as one of the core part of online ID verification push currently going on.
Its worse in a different way.
I mean when people complained about Apple, the standard reply was "if you don't like Apple use Android,it's open! ".
Now when people complain about Android doing the same, the answer is how is it wrong if Google does it, when Apple has been doing this forever.
Raise it at whatever level we can.
I've seen more outrage on HN posts about license changes than those related to this. I mean we are in the midst of one of the biggest rug pull of our lifetime and the response was not even remotely proportional. I wish it was a atleast a fraction of what it was during the SOPA act.
Not even businesses that could be hurt by entrenching Google more in the mobile space are acknowledging the issue.
That makes me think may be all the outrage at the SOPA time was probably "promoted" because it aligned with their commercial interests or may be Google is all too powerful and too deeply entrenched that nobody wants to upset them.
What happens if you "accidentally" become persona non grata with both Google and Apple?
If you want to participate in the society, you will forever have to resort to shady tactics. Shady can be defined something as arbitrary as using GrapheneOS.
A temporary workaround like using alternatives like GrapheneOS for those affected will only delay the inevitable but it doesn't stop it at all.
How long before someone builds an ssh/rsh type shell experience on top and project it as "natural language shell" for dummies.
The US, under Trump, is a foreign policy disaster.
This administration only removed the blinds on what has always been an adversarial policy, allies included.
If given a choice you may choose US or Chinese models for whatever reason it's fine, but there's no need to fall into the delusion that it is for moral reasons or obligations.
A healthy competition is always good for the customer but I have my doubts on the healthy part.
A flood of fly by night products with low effort mess is going to lower the trust in genuine indie development products and could drive users towards established names in the industry.
In some way it's like the new PR flood on github. On the surface more PRs looks like a positive thing but it had unintended consequences.
Can I pay for a movie, hit record, sleep in the theatre and play it back when I get home? I pinky promise that I will close my eyes while recording. Its still the same photons hitting my own camera retina.
Many of us here are software developers by choice or hobby and we know it better than regular folks that scale changes everything and can break our assumptions and business if you design something for wrong scale.
Yet why do we still want to insist that a human and machine are the same and same rules apply when it comes to AI, though we know they operate at different speed and scale?
just because of that edgy wannabe way to go about naming Microsoft.
I think it stopped being edgy and transitioned to a symbol of user frustration the moment their CEO tried to address the slop without acknowledging their customer pain.
It is not much different from the micro$oft used here often.
Exposing those thinking mechanics to competitors would completely defeat the purpose of their spending.
I think one of the reasons could be to limit liability too.
What if reasoning helps in establishing provenance for questionable sources ?
What if reasoning and model's "thought" points to fundamental issues in how the model was trained to produce certain problematic responses ?
And the expectations
- People asking for and always expecting new patterns and colors.
- Raise hell if you miss a few superficial stitches and demand immediate patch work.
- No exit path without complaints. If you find it unsustainable and ask for help with the cost of materials for the *next* batch while the current batch is still out there and works fine, you are blamed for (literal) rug pulling.
People vote for a government that does something very tangible about all of those things
People don't do that.
Politics in US(and democracies in general) have what I call the cable tv bundling problem.
Imagine you have only two bundle packages with your most preferred channels split evenly across two packages along with some unwanted channels. Regardless of which package you choose, you'll miss out on some of your favorite channel and still subscribe to unwanted ones.
You may enjoy watching a channel occassionally at your neighbors who subscribed to the other package but when it is time for renewal, you personally pick the package that gives you maximum bang for your money & preferences.
People will vote mainly based on one or two issues they strongly feel about.
Did anybody else misunderstand the title as removing strncpy func for linux users ?
For a moment, I misunderstood it as (g)libc removing strncpy and was worried about the trouble its going to cause.
If the supply side constraints remains the same, I doubt they'll be releasing their GPUs as they could be considered strategic assets. Their current moat is largely hardware right.
In few years open weight models may be good enough for anything but advanced usecases. With right hardware, competition may grab the lower end of market using open models. There's also potential loss of interesting training data from real conversations.
I see more downsides than upsides.
If you send cards via a third-party subscription service that mails random cards to uploaded contacts in bulk, you'd get marks for setting it up the first time but as the cards pile up and the if the service is detected, it will eventually become a signal that you don't care enough to send them personally.
Is it possible that the team collecting the feedback is reporting specific feedback for 'AI' terminology ?
Renaming customer service team to customer success team and claiming customer service issues reduced is like corporate/leadership strategy 101.
If chad is really struggling and asks to partially pay for his gas costs to meet halfway for getting my stuff* back, I would understand and not be mad at him.
[*] assuming chad doesnt lie about having my stuff as OP claims in this case
This[1] was a beautiful comment and sentiment to preach but difficult to practice I guess ?
Yes, it used to be my goto few times when some devices tried to lockdown everything with bare minimum core utils and no network capable tools like curl etc.
In case of driving the stakes are equally high for everyone on the road. Can we say the same for an agent?
Having an agent is like forever having a genius intern who'll almost always do the perfect job for you. But there is non-zero chance that they'll also come up with quirky solutions and execute those with confidence and no follow-ups. You don't grant the intern production access and hope they check with you.
I don't think the corporate equivalent of "dog ate my homework" flies, if the dog ate your files and your production DB if you are unlucky.
From their perspective, they don't want
1. Standard tier users increasing their usage just to minimize "wasted" token credits.
2. Higher tier users with extra usage enabled to use and pay for those extra tokens instead of planning to stay within limits.
It just doesn't matter.
Pre LLMs it did matter, not rust specifically but the language itself. It meant the difference between asking the developer for a feature/fix and getting it done myself if needed.
Now not so much with LLMs, but it does signal something about the development, deployment and supply chain risks involved.
Coherencey from LLMs decreases as the source increases in volume, waiting to see how this all turns out.
I wonder if feature velocity closely tracks LLM context management innovations.
May be this encourages more modular systems if those improvements can't come fast enough.