raynr

Josef Prusa also commented on this last year: https://www.josefprusa.com/articles/open-hardware-in-3d-prin...

The motive appears to be to get tax credits as opposed to becoming a full-on patent troll, though with how quickly China is speedrunning their version of capitalism I would not be surprised if it turns into patent trolling.

Their behaviour overall is really giving me mixed feelings, because the Bambu A1 I have is an absolutely amazing machine for the price, and I've been casually in this since the Printrbot days.

There are also DCTs which IIRC don't use a torque converter. But chances are pretty good that an automatic transmission car uses a torque converter.

As a layman, this too strikes me as the problem underlying the "confidently wrong" problem.

The author proposes ways for an AI to signal when it is wrong and to learn from its mistakes. But that mechanism feeds back to the core next token matcher. Isn't this just replicating the problem with extra steps?

I feel like this is a framing problem. It's not that an LLM is mostly correct and just sometimes confabulates or is "confidently wrong". It's that an LLM is confabulating all the time, and all the techniques thrown at it do is increase the measured incidence of LLM confabulations matching expected benchmark answers.

I saw a post on this subject in the android subreddit back in 2019 [0] and it was clear that everyone had already accepted by then that the market was too small to sustain this. I too loved Sony's series of compact phones - the XZ1 Compact is still one of the best phones I've ever used.

It is only going to get worse. Most of us who were young adults when the iPhone was announced are in our 40s now, and presbyopia is a real thing. In a few years my daily QOL will be better served by a bigger phone and I suspect many people around my age are feeling the same thing. The "small electronic accessory I bring around" niche will be filled by smartwatches.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/dijok5/is_there_a_... (how quaint the prices look, a mere 6 years on)

I think that's the cart before the horse. People buy the big phones and so businesses cater for that.

Congratulations: you have successfully turned your cool idea into a chore.

The article gave me a vague, off-topic sense of unease but your comment crystallised the feeling for me.

I really wish less emphasis is placed on this kind of blue-sky, "strategic" thinking, and more placed on the "chores". Legwork, maintenance, step-by-step execution of a plan, issue tracking, perspective shifting etc. are all, in my opinion, critically important and much more deserving of praise and respect than so-called "strategic" thinking.

Which, IME, most people can't do anyway! After they've talked their big talk you suggest that there's a practical, on-ground problem and they look at you accusingly, like you're sabotaging their picture. And I'm like, no, my friend; reality is sabotaging your picture, it's just the two of us here and you're not losing any face by me pointing that out, and also if you were an actual strategic thinker you'd have taken my on-ground problem into account already...

I played around with the website. I will take the author's advice to not take it seriously.

Many of the changes are active voice to passive voice. It might sound more polite, but in reality comes off as sneering or condescending.

For e.g., if I've already told you something, I usually change communication channels to a more casual one (pick up the phone, pop my head up, walk over, go on a chat channel) and say: "hey, that question you had, it's already addressed in my email, see this bit over here...".

I would not, as the website suggests, say any of this:

- "There seems to be a disconnect here as this information has already been provided."

- "The information has not changed since the last time it was communicated."

- "As indicated prior."

If you did this to me, I would think you are a jerk.

It's interesting, this isn't the first time Shopify's CEO Tobias has looked to videogames to find skills he wants in employees.

He's a longtime Starcraft fan for example, and offered an ex Starcraft pro a job on the strength of that alone.

There is a reddit thread where he participated in that had some interesting perspectives that I think may be of interest to this forum: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/dl3o2p/billionai...

Something went very wrong in negotiations here. That's all I can say. Who allowed this deal to be penned in its exact fashion?

I'm not sure this is the right way to look at it. It's more likely that nobody "allowed" the situation to happen, and the publishers just had much stronger bargaining power. So libraries either pay to participate and adjust their budget accordingly, or don't have e-books to lend out.

Or, put more provocatively in a forum run by a startup incubator: capitalism allowed this to happen.

My local library does appear to have a large enough budget to cater for this new demand but I can understand if many other city libraries don't.

IAAL but likely not in your jurisdiction, and I agree with this, because the biggest "legal" concern I would have as the linked OP is the company coming back and blaming me for some software I wrote that was out of my job scope entirely.

I would add that the goal isn't just to convince the company to delete the software, but rather to acknowledge and accept that there is no support, no warranty, and if things go wrong it's on their hands.

I propose that the differences in opinion are likely differences in understanding the ill-defined context of the question.

The whole point of the article is that *on large platforms* it is impossible to have policies on moderation, etc. that people agree on. Not small, interest-specific, geographically and linguistically focussed niche platforms.

The example is further perfectly illustrated by users here dropping their confident, just-so how-tos that would accomplish difficult tasks like moderation easily, and other users disagreeing with their equally confident, personally experienced difficulties in executing such just-so plans.

If you can define the question so narrowly as to make the answers obvious, you're not talking about the same problem anymore.

I exercise to maintain healthspan and keep fit, but I am by no means "fit" by the standards of people who are fit. I've seen what strong looks like (I'm not very big, at the oly gym I used to frequent I saw someone my height and weight bench > 3 plates at a meet), I've seen what performance endurance in a run, cycle, and swim looks like, and I've also seen what the vast majority of people at my office are like.

The author has some great reasons to grow and keep big muscles, but I have some thoughts to add for that "majority of people at the office" crowd.

Thought #1: there is one item that the author mentions that I think is absolutely critical yet buried all the way at the bottom.

If you’re over 30 (or even in your 20s and able to afford it), hire a personal trainer to start. They can check your form and avoid any kind of injuries. With weights, it is really easy to get a bad form, no matter how many youtube videos you watch. I went to see a Physiotherapist 4 years after I started squats, and this is the best thing I’ve ever done. She retaught me everything I think I knew about squatting.

I cannot over-emphasise how important it is to focus on form so you avoid injuries. When you're older, hurting yourself will knock you off the exercise horse for years. Also, note that if you're in your 30s and have been mostly sedentary your adult life, the squat and deadlift may not even be movements that you have the range of motion to do.

Don't fall into the trap of pushing yourself because the program said so or the internet said so or because you feel inadequate next to the huge gains that people are showing off on the internet. There is absolutely no shame in taking things slower. Remember your goal is not to look good naked on the beach next summer, it is to maintain healthspan into your 70s.

Thought #2: cardio is important, the author's warning about "too much cardio because your joints will give out and you will lose muscle" is really odd and feels like I'm browsing /r/fitness in 2010. If you're very concerned about your joints, do something lower impact, like swim or cycle or row or the elliptical.

But do take your rest days.

Thought #3: stronglifts 5x5 is great if you're in your 20s or your early 30s. If you're older than that, well, you can still do it but please be careful. See thought #1 above.

Most people I've talked to want farm animals to be treated "well", and whatever that word means in their heads, we all agree that it's some standard higher than industrial scale factory farming.

The problem is that meat and dairy from humanely treated free-range animals is generally more expensive, and most people aren't willing to pay extra or cut down on their meat consumption.

And so it goes.

I didn't get that from the poster you're replying to. I agree with you that people will create because people are people and want to create.

But people also have to eat, need shelter, want kids, have to take care of health issues, and so on. For that they need money. If they can't get money from their creations they'll spend less time creating and more time engaging in activity that generates returns.

I was deeply sceptical of LK-99 and simply chose not to comment on it in public on the internet because: (1) confirmation or contradiction will come soon enough, and (2) being sceptical, however measured, usually attracts accusations of being a negative, cynical naysayer, and I don't need that in my life.

In fact, I don't think it's reasonable that they should even have access to view what you're uploading and sharing in private meetings.

There may be a setting you can set in the application to disable this. I don't know, I don't use Zoom.

But in any case, I think you hit the nail on the head. Just from a plain English perspective:

10.1 says that content you (as host or participant) upload to Zoom, may be used by Zoom to provide derivative information. An example listed is transcripts. Both the information you upload, and the information Zoom provides, is "Customer Content". Customer Content is your responsibility.

10.3 and 10.4 covers a wide variety of purposes for which Zoom can use the Customer Content.

10.5 says that Zoom will reasonably protect Customer Content from unauthorized disclosure, etc., but that it has no other obligations with respect to Customer Content. In particular, it can share the Customer Content with their "consultants,contractors, service providers, subprocessors, and other Zoom-authorized third parties accessing, using, collecting, maintaining, processing, storing, and transmitting Customer Content on Zoom’s or your (or your End Users’) behalf in connection with the Services or Software".

17.1, the confidentiality clause, says that Customer Content is not confidential information. That suggest the obligations of confidentiality, such as disclosing to third parties only with a confidentiality agreement in place, do not apply.

So if I'm reading this right, Zoom can disclose your meeting transcripts [edit: I meant audio of your meeting] to a third party, without an obligation of confidence between Zoom and that third party, so long as it is for the purposes of providing you the transcript feature.

Which is really strange, to say the least. At minimum I would expect Zoom to treat Customer Content as confidential.

Wish a lawyer could read this and give us (free) insight.

Agreed. The concepts were floating around before, but nothing presented the idea of an LLM quite as coherently and presciently like Rorschach did. (I hasten to add that this is in my own limited experience - I am an SFF fan but I have not read every book in existence.)

As a layman with respect to LLMs, I feel like Blindsight and its perspective of the chinese room puzzle is required reading. I wonder if people working in AI feel the same and I'd be really curious to know how they feel about the book.

3. Drones, autonomous or not, aren't anywhere near reliable enough to do autonomous remote delivery. Final delivery is fraught with a myriad of things that can go wrong. GPS is not 100% reliable or accurate in urban areas. Failure in flight means both drone and package are lost, with the added bonus of potentially hurting or killing someone, liability for which the insurance company is not going to underwrite because drones aren't reliable. Backup flight modes add to weight and cost, and reduce deliverable payload. And even after all of that, aviation authorities at least in my jurisdiction are extremely conservative and won't approve them for autonomous delivery and flight near anywhere people live.

4. Payloads on flying things have severe weight and volume limitations. This limits what you can deliver to things that are small and light.

5. An autonomous drone represents an opportunity for theft or interference. See the drone coming, then: steal the goods when it delivers, interfere with its GPS and force it into an error mode that lands the drone, etc. You don't even need to be at the destination.

6. Multicopters, the devices most people think of when they think drones, have terrible range and payload capacity. The flight mode is akin to helicopters, "beat the air into submission". On the upside, they can hover on the spot. In contrast, plane-style drones which fly aerodynamically or "on the wing", have more range (being more efficient), but have difficulty landing on specific spots and then returning back to base. There are solutions around this, but not 100% viable in all cases. VTOL planes exist for instance, but they're finicky. Parachutes as a delivery mechanism also exist, but not everything can be delivered by dropping a payload.

And much more...

Air delivery exists in places where these aren't concerns and where the cost benefit analysis skews the other way. Zipline [0] has been doing a great job delivering blood to remote areas in Rwanda for a while now. Their product, payload, delivery method, geographical location, regulatory environment, all align to make it worth it. Watch some youtube videos of their operation, it's pretty neat.

[0] https://www.flyzipline.com/

The slighted musicians, as you put it, have made plenty of experience-based comments on what the drawbacks are, and why the decision matrix is wrong. They accord with my own (admittedly amateur) experiences. I think it is disingenuous to dismiss their comments with a casual "whether or not you think that's accurate" - that's exactly what their comments are, they're disagreeing with the decision matrix and giving their reasons why.

See especially the comments made by professional tuners (which matches what my own piano tuner tells me).

I think you've got it. /r/worldnews, /r/news, /r/askreddit, /r/WTF, /r/games, /r/politics, all fairly large subs, all still up and running. Enough for that dopamine hit.

Some subs that didn't go completely dark are understandable, like /r/outoftheloop and /r/explainlikeimfive which have gone read-only so that readers can ask and get explanations of what's up.

But there are some surprising ones, like /r/programming. Maybe because it was created by /u/spez? Somewhat interestingly, he's also a mod of /r/outoftheloop.

I understand the sentiment and agree with it, but I think you have the cause backwards.

It's not so much that lawyers win when people fight, the problem is lawyers.

It's that people fight. The problem is people.

And life is complicated, so when people fight, all of the simplification you desire - short contracts, arbitration, support for people to represent themselves - will very quickly succumb to the myriad of edge cases life will throw at it. So over time, you'll get complicated long contracts and complex procedural dispute resolution processes, requiring someone with specialised, deep knowledge of the process and precedents and who will advocate on your behalf, for a fee.

You know, lawyers.

People fight. That's why lawyers win.

To be more specific, the Betamax case is the reason a specific person can store a copy of a TV recording that they made, for timeshifting purposes, because SCOTUS held that that person's use of the recorded TV content, in that circumstance, was fair dealing with respect to the recorded TV content. And that's it.

If you provide a recording service, you had better be as close as you possibly can to that fact matrix. Any hint that it's you, and not your users, who are doing the copying, would attract the wolves.

Also, this focus on who is doing the copying has been looked at enough in different jurisdictions around the world that it's probably not worth the risk testing it. Germany (Save.TV, Shift.TV), Japan (Rokuraku II), Australia (Optus TV Now). Don't quote me on these, this is off the cuff.

This may be of interest to this crowd. Singapore has explicitly set out exceptions to copyright infringement in its new copyright act. Sections 243 and 244 of the Copyright Act 2021 [0] permit copies of works to be made for "computational data analysis", provided certain conditions are met. It's not clear how this will pan out - the definition of "computational data analysis" is broad in some ways, narrow in others, and the conditions need to be tested against real world scenarios.

* * * * *

[0] https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CA2021?WholeDoc=1&ProvIds=P15-#pr...

I thought the list was missing Japanese phones too! I went on holiday to Japan in the early 00s, and I remember thinking how all of the phones were way ahead of their time. Phones with flip-and-swivel screens, phones that looked sleek, metallic, sexy and modern, phones with full colour displays that were not some Palm monstrosity, phones that didn't look like phones and instead looked like some leather-and-metal accessory (only took calls), so many cool phones! I wanted them so bad.

I wonder why they never became popular overseas. The iPhone, sure, but there was a whole period before the iPhone where Japanese phones were way ahead of their time.

Whatever frustration I feel at some of the actions of some environmentalists, pales in comparison to the frustration I feel when I read about the inaction and iniquities of so-called leaders, the wealthy, and those with influence.

What a strange and tiresome article.

The point about the effects defensive writing has on writing quality resonates. Writing is a big part of my work and I've begun to realise that I write defensively - spending time couching things in a context, inserting caveats everywhere, going on asides to deal with potential challenges - it makes for a terribly long and meandering read, whatever point I had to make buried beneath shields of parentheses and moats of footnotes.

Unfortunately, I don't see how to escape it, at least for me that's just the nature of the work.

Also I use NoScript so the redirect didn't work for me.

This is, still, an extremely common practice here in Singapore. In my experience this is because of racism. I say this because I present as the majority race and I know Chinese landlords who have complained to me, in person, about "all those Indians taking over the neighbourhood", and many worse things that they think are funny and that I would laugh at because I present as the majority race.

The common reason given is that Indian cooking involves lots of spices that stain and remain in the kitchen, necessitating either a kitchen overhaul prior to renting to a new tenant, or renting to another Indian family. I understand and am sympathetic towards this reason, having frustratingly burnt-in a few permanent turmeric stains into my work surfaces. But just a little. To be a landlord in Singapore is to be of a financial status that most Singaporeans are not a part of.

And again, I also know it is simply a smoke screen, because these same landlords are also the ones complaining about "all of the Indians in the neighbourhood"! And making variations of the blinding smile joke, bobbing their heads mockingly, wrinkling their noses in disgust at the imagined smell of food or perfumes or incense, complaining about the noise they make, and advising you earnestly to never invest in property in known Indian enclaves.

Thank goodness not everyone is like this, and thank goodness for the enforced racial quotas of government housing.

The main difference between this, versus using a web search engine, appears to be the readability sorting of definitions and the fact that the definitions are scraped from government resources.

The sorting is quite a bit of fun to see in action.

But, what advantage is there that the source is from a government resource? Versus, say, doing a Google search, or browsing Merriam-Webster's legal dictionary, or doing a search through Black's online edition, and so on.

Meh. If tournament organisers want, they can run tournaments where inspections count in the total time, get enough steam and I'm sure it will be exciting enough.

Competition is based on the details in the format, which competitors will optimise for.

Counter example from the examples given in the video. Olympic swimmers race, with heats and rules deciding who takes the less draggy centre lanes. But if we're truly looking for the fastest swimmers, we would conduct individual time trials in temperature controlled single lane pools at sea level, with times measured starting when the competitors' legs leave the diving board and when the competitors' fingers touch the wall at the end of the measured distance. Why should reaction time and inconsistent water drag count for the competition?

After years of lurking, I wrote a post over on /r/android on this... in 2019. By then the small phone minority had been loud and vocal for some years already.

Based on the responses and trends observed since then, I don't think this is ever going to happen.

Tech savvy users for tech savvy products are gone. It is now a consumerism and popularity driven market, small phones simply don't have the bling factor to sell.

Even if this was not the case, logically, if you have only one mobile computing device, you would be better of getting a big one so you that you can do more with it. Read more e-mail, watch more content, play more games, take better pictures (bigger phones tend to have more space for more options).

And for us die hard small phone folks, well, all of us need a phone, right? And since all of our phones stop getting updates after a few years (iPhone notwithstanding), we will complain loudly about the lack of small phones... and then buy a big phone anyway.

The best we can hope for is for manufacturers to make a loss leading mini line. Like Sony, Samsung, and Google used to do.

Now that they do not, I own an iPhone 13 mini, and I hope to use it with battery replacements for at least 4 years.

I put my money where my mouth is for the longest time. My phone history: iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, Sony Z1 compact, Sony Z3 Compact, Sony Z5 Compact, Sony XZ1 Compact (good golly gosh what a fantastic phone that was), Pixel 3, iPhone 13 Mini. But our market is too small.

RIP small phones.