fauigerzigerk

I haven't yet found a way for a mobile app or web page to explicitly signal to the device that the passkey to be created should live in $password_manager and not whatever built-in/on-device key-store exists.

On Android 17 (on Pixel) you can select the password service under Settings -> Passwords and passkeys -> Preferred service.

If you have an alternative password manager installed, it will be listed there along with Google's own password manager. iOS has a similar setting but I don't know exactly where off the top of my head.

No you're wrong. It absolutely is a consequence of connecting an LG monitor. Connecting an LG monitor triggers a chain of events that deterministically and deliberately cause these ads to be shown.

The hardware alone is not sufficient for this to happen, but if you were to modify or "fix" the monitor (specifically its firmware) so that it no longer identifies as an LG monitor, then it would no longer cause these ads to be shown.

In other words, if A causes B and B causes C then it is correct to say that A causes C.

I disagree. It matters that LG makes ads appear on their customers' screens as a deterministic consequence of connecting one of their monitors. It's not superstition.

Of course the details are important on some level. But that doesn't make everything else not matter and it doesn't turn an incomplete explanation into a lie.

I would say it's neither a lie nor misinformed. It 's a punchier headline that can be justified by what the user experiences. The user connects a monitor which causes ads to appear. The rest of this Rube Goldberg contraption is a mere detail.

I don't know. Some of it did seem like short attention spans and not enough perseverence. But what do I know being far from an insider.

Android wasn't created to undercut Apple

Android the technology wasn't, but Android the commercial product along with its business model was.

The first iPhone came out in June 2007. In November of that year Google and partners announced the Open Handset Alliance and the open sourcing of Android.

Yes, that's the wiggle room Count Binface was referring to in the interview I watched.

Also, parliament has a rule against wearing costumes like this. But Count Binface called that rule "binist" and claimed there was some wiggle room in the way the rule was worded :)

I think leaving the seat empty if he wins is the only possible choice, both legally and democratically. He should make it clear that this is what would happen if he gets elected so the people of Clacton know what they are voting for.

That doesn't do justice to some of the arguments that SQLite authors are making.

In Postgres, if you insert a real number into an int column, the data gets rounded and stored as int. In SQLite, the data is inserted as real.

Neither approach is fail-fast.

It's a PITA to work with. If I could design it from scratch, it'd be a single table with JSON payload.

Isn't plain JSON even worse? At least the design you're criticising has a dynamic schema definition separate from code.

You could of course have a JSON schema somewhere, but in my experience the whole point of representing the schema as data in the database is to support (limited) end-user driven schema changes.

I would use JSON to store data that complies with a schema that can be modified by third parties outside of my control.

No, that's not the same at all, because it is possible to be not corrupt while it is impossible to be unbiased.

I think there are important differences between bias and dishonesty/propaganda though, and that's where your argument is still valid.

But the price of some unit of a commodity may well be expressed in smaller fractions to allow for small price changes.

You could argue that a price is not really an amount that anyone can actually pay and that's true. But it seems complex and error prone to store unit prices and amounts using different scaling factors.

"Monetary value must be stored in integers" is the much stronger statement that the article doesn't make. Obviously there are exceptions, but you're going to need a much longer side discussion in order to justify why you're using floats.

It doesn't make that statement because arbitrary precision decimals exist. Binary float is not the only and not the most plausible alternative to using integers.

What's your preferred solution to dealing with FX conversions?

My issue with using integers everywhere is that FX conversions (or other rates) always come into play, and at that point I'm forced to use something else anyway (e.g. arbitrary precision decimals).

The US has successfully stopped them from acquiring the machines. That's not the same as stopping them from acquiring the capability to make them. On the contrary.

EU didn't fail because it never even tried.

Of course the EU tries to compete with the US and in some industries it has done so successfully (e.g pharma or aviation). EU companies have also tried to compete in information technology - with some limited or temporary success.

ARM was founded in the EU. DeepMind was founded in the EU. Olivetti and Siemens had CPU designs and made computers. Nokia once dominated mobile. Ericsson was/is a leading telecom equipment maker. Skype used to be one of the most successful messaging apps. Spotify is a success. ASML is a success.

A certain Finnish university student started the operating system that now dominates the cloud, but for some reason I really do not understand, EU cloud providers like OVHCloud have failed to compete with the likes of AWS, Azure and GCP. And now the AI wave has completely washed over Europe.

The cloud situation is a mystery to me. Nothing stops EU companies like OVHCloud from competing there. Any anticompetitive behaviour is a very weak excuse. Europe can't even compete with something as mediocre as Palantir. Now everyone is calling for protectionism. Ridiculous.

AI is easier to understand. It requires huge capital investments. The US has far superior capital markets and far healthier attitudes towards risk taking. Europe's failure here was easy to predict but the consequences could be dire.

As a European, the way I see it, Europe declared fealty to the US and relinquished its sovereignty a long time ago, sadly.

No such declaration was ever made. Europe has just failed to compete.

I agree. But Micron says it wants to end the boom-bust cyles in the memory chip business for good. It won't work.

A higher price floor for longer creates an incentive for competitors to bring more capacity online. The eventual supply glut will be even bigger.

The cyclicality of the semiconductor business (especially for simpler chips) is a result of the fact that inventory can build up. That hasn't changed and it never will.

Are you referring to ActivityPub traffic (Mastodon, etc.)?

No, I wasn't even aware that they use anything RDF related.

I agree that something like it will re-emerge. But I also think the semantic web has always been misunderstood and misapplied even by its proponents.

In my view, semantic web technologies should have been used to make databases interoperable, not to turn the hypertext web into an incredibly incomplete distributed database without any data quality process.

100% of users have legitimate reasons to block internet access for some apps.

If internet access wasn't granted by default, a lot more apps would function without it.

Many other apps wouldn't exist at all, because their only reason to exist is to spy on users.

I don't think component prices will kill personal computing. Prices used to be far higher in the heyday of personal computing. Millions of people buy phones every two years that cost twice as much as a perfectly capable PC.

Personal computing in the sense of actually controlling our hardware and software will be killed (or rather degraded) by government regulation and platform oligopolies.

No, this is meaningless. Of course AIs, just like humans, will go rogue and probably already do. "Rogue" is a pattern that appears in human communication and behaviour and AIs can emulate it.

But that doesn't make any particular AI controlled process all-powerful. Self improvement doesn't do that either. There will be many self improving AI processes playing many different roles pursuing many different goals.

If you believe the labs' implied/stated objectives, the end goal is eating all human-driven GDP, and the US is still the largest single-market economy in the world, last I checked.

The US is about a quarter of the global economy, but let's use Microsoft's international revenue share of ~50% as a proxy for tech services. It's ~40% for the S&P 500.

I don't know what share of that would be impacted by export bans, but it would certainly affect ROI. It would hurt the competitiveness of the wider US tech industry and create incentives for moving highly paid work overseas.

US exports as a whole is only 10% of the GDP.

It's 12% to 13% but this is distorted by the way in which tech services are counted in export statistics and also by tax avoidance. Just look at Ireland's ridiculous GDP numbers.

If the technology is as powerful as these somehwat fantastical "goals" suggest, the incentive to use it everywhere in the world would be enormous. An export ban wouldn't mean that only the US has the capability. The theory behind current models is well known. It's just a matter of optimising them for specific use cases and using them on an industrial scale.

Most AI researchers are not US citizens either. It's completely obvious that this is the US shooting itself in the foot (if it were to last, which I don't believe).

With due respect, this take is very deluded. US voters have very little to lose if the tech is not available to the rest of the world.

Really? You think the economics of the AI buildout remain viable if US companies cannot export their highest value services?

You think expelling foreign AI researchers doesn't hurt the industry or boost foreign competitors? Half (or whatever) of Google's AI team, including their AI chief are foreign nationals and/or located outside of the US.

You think that other IT exports will not suffer if the US turns out to be an unreliable and even capricious supplier?

This does real damage to the US economy.

Anthropic would have been able to talk to someone and explain how it wasn't possible to ban just "foreign nationals", and would have pointed out how nonsensical such a request was.

It's not nonsensical if the intention is to destroy Anthropic. There is nothing to explain.

Anthropic has been trying to leverage government intervention and dishonest security bluster for competitive advantage and now the Trump admin is using it as a pretext to destroy them ahead of the IPO.

In basically all of the western world minors can enter into debt contracts, but are generally not seen as particularly creditworthy.

Minors can't get a credit card in the UK. In fact, it's one of the government approved age verification methods for that exact reason.

I completely agree with you that this particular ruling does not make Gemini illegal in Germany.

I'm just wondering whether the logic of the ruling is tied to the specific context (search results) or applied more generally to LLM generated text.

I'm not sure. Is it really just the misleading part that the court takes issue with, i.e portraying Gemini output as a search result?

In my view, the ruling could mean that Gemini's output is legally seen as first-person speech by Google regardless of where it is published.

They ultimately don't have that power. All they can do is block the sale of products. Arguably, that power gives them leverage to negotiate the availability of some products or features. But as this Apple case shows, this negotiating leverage is limited.