5,752 karma · joined October 5, 2016
I have an M4 MacBook Pro. It gets hot. The fan kicks in, and it gets noisy. I can't say whether it is T14 noisy since I never heard one. As for the cool and fanless MacBook Air, my understanding is that Apple is quite aggressive with thermal throttling. That's perfectly acceptable, even desirable, under some workloads. Under other workloads, it is not.
I don't really buy into this theory that they want to keep all of their users on their site due to advertising revenues. The effectiveness of search engines has been degraded for decades due to SEO, and it seems as though search engines have been having an increasingly difficult time managing it in recent years. AI on the backend may help them contain it, but it comes at considerable expense. While it may help them grow their market share, it won't help them grow the market and it is a market where people expect the service for free. On the flip side, companies are already starting to sell AI services, so it can generate revenue even before advertising is factored into the picture.
I agree that plain language queries is what people wanted. We've been seeing Google shift in that direction for well over a decade. And of course people are looking towards search engines for answers. There may be different expectations for where those answers are coming from, and there are cases where people are simply trying to source information, but those differences are likely just noise as far as Google is concerned.
I don't agree with people expecting advice or reassurance from a search engine. There will be some people who do that. It may even be a sizeable number of people. But using this article as an example that a majority of people want such a thing is silly.
I mean, look at the query. To the author, it was an attempt to source information. Yet the author also realised that the reader would need context to understand why Google's response was weird in their mind. What they failed to do was give context to Google, so the LLM interpreted it as asking for social advice.
New technology requires new approaches. It's as simple as that.
I'm not terribly familiar with this sort of software, but isn't the reason for embedding Chromium to have access to JavaScript. Sure, it was intended for the person running the OBS instance. Yet offering the end user that much power also opens up the possibility of them shooting themselves in the foot.
When I switched over to using an app, there was also a good chance that an algorithmically suggested video from an unfamiliar creator would capture my imagination. When I have looked at recommendations recently, I doubt that would be a problem today. Too much AI and human generated slop. Too many click-bait titles that barely give a hint on what the video is about, never mind why I should care about their take on it.
Then there are the days when I am both bored and exhausted. While I don't tend to watch much on those days, I have known myself to scroll through the recommendations to see if there is anything to occupy the time.
I agree with BASIC taking effort, yet the baseline for effort has also changed. Over the span of my lifetime, we have gone from virtually everyone performing tasks without the aid of computers, to a few hobbyists and early adopters writing their own software, to buying software off the shelf, to using targeted online applications for free or nominal cost. At the same time people are expecting applications to be easier to use. As you suggested, constant churn in infrequently used applications can cause a lot of frustration.
Now I agree with you if the discussion is about using AI to immediately solve the problem at hand. I simply don't agree that it will end up with people creating reusable applications to perform the task. While overcoming the technical hurdles would be easy enough, I think that it takes a certain type of personality to think of creating a long term solution. Then there is describing the problem in a way that an LLM can translate into code, then there is the testing of the software generated.
The same way they did in the past, with broadcast radio and television: they base it on audience numbers rather than tracking whether people actually listened or viewed the ad. Besides, isn't one of the major motivators of tracking to avoid fraud? (Which I find ironic, given I don't view advertisers as very ethical in the first place.)
> Either way I fundamentally disagree with them on the idea that push advertising is ethical in the first place
The way I think of it: advertising doesn't have to be unethical, but it incentivizes unethical behaviour.
> Like did you also not fast-forward your VCR through ads in those days and instead dutifully watch attentively lest God know you were naughty?
I would typically walk away to do something else. Same outcome though. That said, I started to turn away from broadcast media in the early to mid-1990's. I forget whether it was due to advertising, but the end result was a lot less exposure to advertising. Which is a good thing IMHO.
Incidentally the second stipulation, the restriction on domestic surveillance, sounds like direct recognition of the role IBM played in the Holocaust. Of course, the better course of action would be to deny the military access to their technology. But that's not going to happen because there is so much money on the table.
All you need to do is look at history to realise that. We had things like BASIC, HyperCard, and the early web that attracted droves of people who were excited by the opportunities. While a lot of those people went into industry to write software for other people, a lot did not. Most people, I suspect, didn't even explore the potential because they simply don't think of computers as programmable machines -- even if they were aware that there are people who program computers for a living.
The problem is that history has proven time and time again that it doesn't. While the homebrew scene for the DS was vibrant, even with the barriers, it was lacklustre on the GP2X, even without the barriers. There were likely a lot of reasons for that, but they all pretty much add up to the idea that not buying locked down products will not help.
(Strictly speaking, people did continue adding symbols. We used to talk about code pages: when the MSB was 0, the other 7 bits were ASCII. When the MSB was 1, the other 7 bits were a user selected code pade.)
I am going to agree, albeit from an entirely different perspective.
My job has nothing to do with programming. Aside from administrative tasks, my job has nothing to do with computers. Yet I know how to program and I realize that automating those administrative tasks will have huge benefits for me. The problem is my employer doesn't pay me to write code, so I never got around to that automation.
Realistically speaking, writing that code without AI would not offer much in the way of understanding or expertise. Most of it is: "look up X, if A then B, else C, iterate" type tasks. There is a barrier in knowledge with respect to library calls, but that's pretty close to junk knowledge (it's rapidly obsoleted, and useless if I need to interface with different software).
So the choice is between doing without, or spending a lot of time picking up tasks that are of no value to me. Time was the barrier.
These arguments also remind me a lot of the microcomputer revolution: a heck of a lot of mainframe COBOL and FORTRAN developers were critical of underpowered computers and toy programming languages. The reality is that it opened up opportunities for a new generation of developers, and new types of software was created because the problem solvers were closer to the problem.
Then again: while I believe bad UI/UX is a thing, I don't think there is an ideal. Different people think in different terms, or have different preferences. Some forms of interaction are better in one domain than another. There are undoubtedly many other reasons.
As for Firefox taking things into their own hands, that's the developer's decision. I have already given two reasons why that may be the case (users may expect consistency across platforms, and it may require too much effort for too little return).
It is also worth noting that the macOS UI/UX isn't anywhere near perfect. It is a hodgepodge of design decisions that go back to the origin of OS X or, in a few cases, the origin of the Macintosh iitself. Padding and margins may help achieve visual balance, but it's Windows management paradigm is an absolute functional mess.
As for the excellent browser that people want, that raises the question of what people want. There are likely as many answers as people.
Like you, I abstain. Yet I do have to deal with bartenders, and I will say that some are responsible and some are not. (I have pissed off some fairly powerful people along with people who commerially produce alcohol, and ought to know better, that they cannot serve alcohol because they are unlicensed, uncertified, or uninsured.)
I'm likely old school here, but I never liked "paying for what I use" in the online world because it required revealing some personally identifying information (i.e. to make payment). My attitude is almost certainly irrelevant these days, with the scope of online tracking, sharing of data, and the near necessity of disclosing one's identity to sites other than one's ISP, but it was an attitude that was established in my mind nearly 30 years ago.
(I also don't trust the pay for privacy model. First of all, you can never assume that paying for something implies your data won't be sold. That was even true before the public Internet. Then, even with statements about privacy, you cannot assume that will be true in the future. If the company is sold, management changes, or the company decides the need/want additional revenues, that will change. And that assumes they don't use weasel words about what privacy means, or the ultimate "we reserve the right to changes this agreement at any time".)
The article also suggests that it cannot be decoded.
Individual instructions assume the data they operate on is of a particular type, but it doesn't differentiate data types in memory. Here's an example where I forced the C compiler to treat the bit pattern of two floats as integers, then add those values as integers. The result is, of course, absolutely meaningless.
float dx = 1.0;
float dy = 1.0;
int *pix = &dx;
int *piy = &dy;
int isum = *pix + *piy;
float *pdsum = &isum;
printf("%d\n", isum);
printf("%f\n", *pdsum);
I understand what you are getting to here, and agree that we are getting into the domain of semantics. Yet it could be argued that (for the most part) there is a 1:1 mapping between assembly and the assembly processes is (mostly) reversible. Personally, this is where I would draw the line.
> So we either descend endlessly into pedantry arguing that cosmic rays and ...
I think I see where you're going, though I don't agree with the particular example. If you're saying that machine language is an abstraction in itself, that those sequences of 1's and 0's are a construct of electrical engineers to describe electrical pulses that control transistors in a chip, then I fully agree with you. And if you say that those electrical pulses and transistors are themselves abstractions of physical processes, then I fully agree with you. But I wouldn't really describe it as nerd sniping. These involve different disciplines that are examining the machine at fundamentally different levels.
Yet one of the more interesting reasons, in my mind, is that C adds a tonne of abstractions. The roster of data types is one of those abstractions. Processors have a very weak notion of data types, and memory has absolutely no notion of memory types at all. For example: casting a `float` to an `int` has a very specific definition in C, and that definition involves altering the pattern of bits. While you can create a float and force the C compiler to regard that memory location as an int (via casting pointers), it isn't how the language is meant to be used (outside of rare cases).
If I recall correctly, some of the direct predecessors of C were typeless, which is closer to how the CPU and RAM treat data.