etchalon

Oh look, Ken Paxton is bragging about accomplishing nothing.

I don't understand that point of the story.

It's essentially, "We both used the same iMovie template because neither of us are creative."

We're gonna need two-way passwords for conversations.

Fun.

Steve also actually, you know, left. And stayed away for over a decade.

... what the hell are you talking about?

What a neat culture OpenAI has.

Apple doesn't have a history of losing lawsuits.

Based on the timelines at play here, I'd wager this.

The best models for new Siri, on device, requires the iPhone 17 Pro, so your experience on a 15 is going to be degraded.

It'd be super nice if tech companies stopped just building the same product and gave us concretely different ideas.

I think the solution will be riots.

I mean, we can always riot.

Microsoft just never sorted out their exclusivity problem, tried to acquire their way to it, only to then be stymied by regulators, all the while having second-best hardware compared to the PS5.

Expedition 33 was released across multiple platforms simultaneously.

SoM was an Xbox/PC/Game Pass exclusive for a year.

It's not a perfect comparison.

If you're developing for the web and you're not testing you're site on real hardware, including a handful of iPhones and a handful of Android devices, your not actually testing your software.

You can't just check Chrome and assume everything else will exhibit the same behaviors. Standards exists, but so do bugs.

Stealing this forever.

I think this is a battle they won't win, though I applaud the effort.

Everyone thinks AI can do everyone else's job, but not theirs.

It's currently #2 behind the RAV4.

The claim was #1, not #2 though.

And, even with the #1 spot, that was 1 vehicle in a massive industry.

Right. But that's not #1. It's a popular niche.

In what industry is Tesla #1 in?

Look, you ate the lunch. The company has to track those resources.

I think you're confusing this specific study with a different study, which did use duplicative resumes, and has been repeated:

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0002828042002561

There are essentially two definitions of racism at this point.

The colloquially version, which means "prejudice based on race" and a second version, which specific groups and people have advocated for, which means something like "structural oppression through cultural and governmental means". It's more complicated than just that, but it's a fairly narrow term for them.

So when one person says "there's no such thing as anti-white racism", you hear, "No one's prejudiced against white people for being white!" Obviously, that's ludicrous.

But that person is likely using the, I have no idea what to call it, "advocate definition" maybe, definition would which preclude anti-white racism from existing within that narrow definition of racism.

So it's a debate where people aren't speaking the same version of a language, convinced each other are uninformed, reactionary or stupid.

I'd have a problem with that too. In fact, I'd have a problem not being allowed to use cash.

I am deeply inconsistent on this.

I should be worried about this, but Anthropic's products are a paid product. You can't use them without providing some identifying information, unless you're going out of your way to provide them inaccurate information.

I generally dislike services which require this level of identity verification but also, so far, those have mostly been freemium services and community tools. And I dislike gating those communities.

I'm sure I should have more of a problem with this.

Don't have much to add beyond being grateful for everyone working to call this out, with a hope some lawsuits drop and our SCOTUS doesn't decide racial bias in AI is fine because we can't prove the AI is racist in its heart.

Holy shit, I just realize you linked the wrong US vs Yang case.

You googled, someone mentioned US v Yang, and you found a Seventh Court decision about a different case altogether, that had nothing to do with ALPR data or Carpenter, and linked it. Without reading the link.

I knew the case so I didn't need to read the link to know you were wrong about it. Didn't bother to click it.

That is ... absolutely hilarious.

No it didn't. You keep insisting it "set a precedent" when the opinion explicitly cites precedent to say they don't need to set any precedent or make a novel ruling because existing precedent already establishes that there's no expectation of privacy in an overdue rental car in Yang's situation. The majority APPLIED existing precedent to the case facts.

Please go actually read the opinion.

If you do, you'll see the concurrence specifically says, "Hey, I agree we should reject Yang's case, but we should have probably decided this on Fourth Amendment grounds and actually said ALPR data doesn't require a warrant and Carpenter doesn't apply", because the majority EXPLICITLY did not do that and the concurring judge wanted to.

What's baffling here is it's not even that long an opinion. With the dissent, it's less than 30 pages. It's incredibly straightforward.

You apparently just can't accept the ego hit that you were decisively wrong about something.

That's really sad, dude.

... There is nothing waiting to be seen.

The court ruled, as hundreds of cases have been ruled before, that Fourth Amendment protections only apply if there is an expectation of privacy. Its opinion made clear that they were ignoring whether warrantless use of APLR data is a Fourth Amendment issue because you can't have a Fourth Amendment issue if there is no expectation of privacy and there can be no expectation of privacy in Yang's specific situation.

It didn't uphold the use of the data. It said it didn't need to address the use of the data, because it was a moot point.

This is like arguing with someone that a court didn't say Dragons couldn't be charged with a crime because the court only said Dragons aren't real.

Please stop doubling down.