close04

The ProMotion screens have variable refresh rate depending on the content displayed. 10Hz to 120Hz for iPhones and 24Hz to 120Hz for iPads. So in theory the power consumption should be even better than a regular screen for static content like reading text.

> people talking about 100s of tabs

This is a form of bookmarking in practice. I know people doing this and none could list what the tabs are without checking each one. In the physical world you have the equivalent of people having the desk full of stuff they never use but don't put away because they might use it later.

I get it. I meant it applies to everything. For the mobile phones I started the conversation with the crazy designs sometimes had nothing to do with the core functions. But it made them stand out and it was a learning opportunity for the manufacturer. I remember my partner's Nokia 7280, so original and impractical by any standard. At some point phones started being a proper tool to have in your pocket so the practical aspects took priority.

It's the manufactured equivalent of carcinization.

> don't comment to complain about bad parenting if you haven't had kids or had 1 or 2 neuro typical, easy kids and a wife who did most of the parenting

So I'm allowed to complain, and then some :). Screens are horrible especially when they come attached to a device made to be addictive, like an Amazon tablet.

But kids don't raise themselves no matter how "easy" they are. Parents have to make unpopular decisions that the kids will benefit from and maybe even understand when they're older. Those decisions suck the life out of you because the kid "hates" you for it, and you have to fill the void with something else that takes more parental effort. Sometimes maybe it's impossible to avoid "the screen" because of some special family situation. But at "3+" these are exceptional situations, don't treat them like the baseline.

The consequences of addiction from such a young age to screens (or sugar, junk food and every other mistake parents make to make their own lives easier in the moment) are documented and lifelong. As a parent you won't escape them, you'll live them through your child's life. Might as well take the hit for them now, even if it costs you. It doesn't get easier anyway, a pre-teen with no phone surrounded by friends who have one is no joke.

> ended up in a bonfire along with my first edition Harry Potter book collection when my mum was doing a "clear out"

Do you mean a literal bonfire to burn them? A first edition Harry Potter book collection would be a nice gift to someone or a donation to the library. The last place books should end up is in a fire.

That was exactly the point. Early in the life of a new type of device (like a mobile phone, smart or dumb) there's a period of experimentation. Then everything converges towards an optimum.

Keep in mind that the phone's primary interface wasn't always a keypad, it used to be a dial or a lever. The speaker and microphone were distinct parts rather than a single "receiver". And they all slowly converged to a couple of very similar optimized designs.

Reminds me of how mobile phones used to have very varied, even whimsical designs and slowly we settled on the rectangular slab. There's probably a point where form and function converge and then everything hovers in that region.

> I know they monitor peoples chat logs.

> I'm not uninformed on this

Sure, that’s why in your previous comment you were making it sound ridiculous to believe OAI is “secretly monitoring everyone’s logs”. You dug that hole.

> What I'm saying is that its highly unlikely that in this case that Sébastien Bubeck from OpenAi decided to steal some critical idea from Buckmasters chat and feed it "Bell" the unreleased model that produced the solution.

Why "highly unlikely"? Because OpenAI like all other big tech would never (ab)use a mechanism they even already officially have in place to boost up their valuation? Because they never used people's data in the past? Because they aren't famous for ingesting all of the internet's data with or without permission?

You choose to give them the benefit of the doubt despite every bit of past evidence and experience. That's not an argument, that's wishful thinking that "this time it's definitely different".

I’ll start with this because it sets the tone for how uninformed your opinion is, thinking you're calling out some conspiracy theory:

> they actually secretely monitor everyones chat logs

Are you for real? They openly monitor everyone’s chat logs. If you had bothered to ask ChatGPT it would literally tell you that they do it. That’s how they know (and yet still fail to report, so the mechanism isn't there for reporting to authorities) that someone is planning a school shooting [0]. They monitor anything and anyone of interest.

Now if “having agents” was enough then we’d just ask for the cure for cancer or proof for every theorem and wait for a few days. Obviously they need guidance to not get stuck in a dead end or have to brute force everything. OAI’s mathematicians weren’t able to provide a good direction so the agents stalled until someone else found the key and only then OAI had their breakthrough.

[0] https://airisk.mit.edu/ai-incidents/1375-openai-allegedly-di...

You’re asking a loaded question based on things that were never said. Very lowbrow.

One thing is how uniformly a rule is applied. Another thing is whether a rule is "right" to begin with. I addressed the first because it’s far more straightforward and objective. You did some mental gymnastics to name-drop the second without even the effort to say something about it. Weak strawman.

Another thing I addressed is the lack of trustworthiness of these companies. They lied to you again and again but they wouldn’t lie to you now, would they? You left that out completely, so maybe you even agree.

Next time if you want the courtesy of a reply, extend the courtesy of not bringing just low-effort strawman and loaded questions.

The coincidence is that they took the correct path out of “every possible one” exactly after one of their users took it.

Monkeys on typewriters excuse only works for huge companies who can afford to buy opinions.

The "coincidence" defense never works for random individuals so I won't buy it when it comes companies worth billions which will lie, cheat, and deceive to make even more billions. They've been caught lying and stealing again and again. After so many years of this I think any trust put in them is either blissful ignorance or willful misdirection.

The top speed of ~800km/h or ~500mph (at ~22km or 72k ft altitude) seems almost laughable today. And yet it was almost untouchable at the time.

Today it's probably for hire for major events like a big match.

Israel can probably pwn any normal mobile phone because they invested a lot in this area, and has no reason to be afraid to do it. They are always shielded from consequences.

> I don’t see any benefits

The real benefit is "one to rule them all". It's so much more useful to have one single network that everybody uses even if the service doesn't have all the bells and whistles, than it is to have to use a patchwork of 1000 different networks even if they're stuffed with fancy features.

> No Valve system is console like.

That entire paragraph makes it obvious that I'm talking about hardware. From the first sentence that spells it out, to talking about upgrading RAM. On the software front, the "open" PC ecosystem is heading in a bad direction for consumers too. So what if I can install from any store if they all rent me the same game at the same price? The difference between Valve and Epic is that one has a loyal following of promoters but in the end I don't own the game, I'm only renting it. And we're always one step away from rentseeking and or losing access even to those rentals.

> open but easy to use devices, like Steam hardware & co widely available

The problem was never the hardware. Consoles and PCs were both a compromise, a trade between convenience, flexibility, price. The easy to use devices from Steam are more console than PC and that's fine. Nobody has a problem with this as long as games run. If the game runs well I don't care about the CPU, RAM, OS, or that I can't upgrade them. I don't spend money on RAM for the sake of plugging things in, I spend it because the system needs it. The Steam Machine is a step towards "consolification" from a PC perspective. The Deck is a true console. So saying "finally consoles are gone" should be more "consoles are dead, long live consoles".

The big problem that only recently got prominence is ownership of the games. Take away the brand loyalty and you'll see that Steam isn't really doing much here. But I care about being able to buy and sell my games, or play them for as long as a compatible system is available. In this regard the Steam store is not much different from console stores. It offers some quality of life features but the core is still missing. It's not my game anymore and this comes with a lot of implications that aren't mitigated by running Linux or having RAM slots.

That's a sad and funny story, DOGE is the gift that keeps on giving in that regard (hail Musk, I guess). They are a very special group, the embodiment of carelessness and callousness, led by someone who picked them in his image. But I'm not sure what it tells us about the greater world where regardless of intention and execution the statistics are not on your side when someone is motivated to attack or destroy your things.

The actual content goes through the trouble of telling you in every paragraph that your understanding of "truth" is wrong.

Unless all you have at hand (or at head) is a 2 parameter small language model, you have no excuse to go no further than the URL.

You're saying is that when things are bad, it doesn't matter if someone makes them much worse. I think you're doing it for the sake of argument, and you'll find 1000 caveats why it only applies to what you want it to apply, because there's no possible way you'd go with in in real life. "Sir, you were bleeding anyway so it doesn't matter that we took your kidney".

It matters to the people who don't hand over their phone to a stranger. When someone hands of devices to a random stranger it's an exception and it goes against popular wisdom. When Meta does something hostile towards its users they do it for billions and the practice is normalized.

> anyone surprised?

A lot of people actually, even techies. I commented something similar on a different tech website (Ars Technica) highlighting the trustworthiness of the company behind the tool, and that by now people should not be surprised the face eating leopard eats faces. I was met with a lot of implicit defense of Meta and redirecting the attention to "whatabout" Anthropic, OpenAI, etc. (much like sibling reply here makes it an "every tech company" problem). The general agreement in that forum was that the company is not the problem, it's just what AI tooling does.

So either the internet is full of shills, or people are genuinely surprised because they chose ignorance for decades. Or maybe both can be true.

It's a topic that comes up once in a while, usually when it's less relevant to the point being made. The short story [0] is that it can mean both literally or figuratively depending on if you use it literally or figuratively.

> We define literally in two senses:

> 1) in a literal sense or manner : actually

> 2) in effect : virtually

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally

> It is not a base truth.

When you operate in an environment where every "good boy" can be wiped by a single "oh shit", statistics are against you. That is a base truth. The failure can rest on negligence but negligence isn't a necessary component for failure. For attackers their failures are wiped by a single success, for defenders their successes are wiped by a single failure.

In a different life I worked on designing and implementing similar systems to the ones you described, except with even more money going through them. They can can still be hacked, at incredible expense. And the hackers could even make a huge profit with the treasure trove they have access to. But getting away with it is orders of magnitude more difficult than the hack. The money involved to make the hack profitable is impossible to hide on the world stage. It takes a lot of political capital and military to be able to steal billions+++ and get away with it (nation state attackers, not just a group of hackers). So hackers go for lower risk jobs where the payout can even be similar just because of the lower cost to succeed.

> Interim Maj. Max Nowinsky sustained the allegation and recommended an eight-hour suspension

Lots of explanations provided for wanting to go easy on her. Is the same logic applied for the many victims of a police department? If it's preferential treatment then maybe Interim Maj. Max Nowinsky should also be kicked to the curb.

> Tyler Harpe, a federal ICE agent

Federal ICE agent Tyler Harpe, may you enjoy your new found fame.

Reminder to everyone that an onion is an onion all the way to the core. Every layer is more eye sting for the peeler.

In the interest of balance, how many times did the FBI snoop into innocent people’s private lives with no warrant or worse, goaded some weak-minded individuals into planning crimes together in sting operations (i.e. people who needed convincing to commit the crime, so not quite clean but not the masterminds either)?

If you put out a fire how many are you allowed to set while people applaud selectively?

I don’t think they’re striking a good balance between how invasive they are compared to the real results they deliver.

Alpine has multiple meanings. Some of them are generically relating to tall mountains, or for plants living above the timber line.

The responsibility to do their best to protect is still with the owner, it doesn't mean they must succeed at any cost. They must only do their best. Did they do their best?

I read the statement as the government introduced additional security measures "even though responsibility for their protection rested with their owners". These measures weren't "surface-to-air missiles, flak cannons, Gatling guns, and anti-air radars". Clearly more could have been done before digging into the bag of silly options. The owners just didn't do it.

There's a fine line between hyperbola to make a point, and hyperbola as a silly attempt to blur the issue. You comment is on the wrong side.

Let's put one thing front and center, you called it "rationing". You could be right or wrong, but you haven't supported your case at all, to demonstrate it's not just supply-demand. You just focused on arguing weaker interpretation of what I said, discussing infinities, and obsessing about why people bring up lights.

> And I do want to plug what Citizen_Lame said in a sibling comment, the obsession with lightbulbs whenever energy comes up is a bit odd

I think you want to distract from not making your point. But easy, light used to consume a lot. By some statistics [0] just a few decades ago it was ~10TWh, close to 15% of household consumption, which in turn was higher than industrial consumption (1.1:1). So lights consumed ~8% of UK electricity. Is 15% in a household or 8% for the country so insignificant that mentioning it is ridiculous?

Personal anecdata, I can use more energy but I realistically (not in "infinite energy" world) want and need exactly as much as I use.

[0] https://www.academia.edu/81562463/Energy_consumption_in_UK_h...

> What is obsession with the light

Because the comment triggering this branch suggested improvements in efficiency must imply wanting to consume more. Light is one of those things, where the rule doesn't automatically apply. It's not the only thing I mentioned, you just chose to skip the others to make your job of arguing easier.

> Heating, cooking and appliances use the most

Even there you get more for less. Induction stoves are way more efficient than the old heating elements but do you want to spend more time in front of the stove because the electricity is cheaper? Some times, but not that common. Heat pumps are way more efficient than a boiler but it doesn't guarantee that you want hotter shower water or warmer room. But more importantly, most heating isn't electric. Natural gas, oil, or wood were always far more common. In the UK today almost 75% of heating is gas. Electricity is less than 10% [0] so it contributes little to the topic of the article.

Now let's get to the confounding factors which go down the pit of ignorance. Natural gas was always subsidized almost everywhere in the world whether you know it or not. District heating is more of the same. Where I live there are still "heating electricity" plans so people get a better price if they happen to use electrical heating because the provider knows that small number of people will suffer compared to others.

Another confounding factor, the push for extreme efficiency. Heat pumps have some big limitations that nobody wants but choose to live with for the sake of efficiency and self sufficiency. Because people also install solar panels on their roof and power their appliances without anyone ever reporting how much more heating or cooking was provided with 0 load on the grid.

In reality the biggest consumers which dwarf cooking appliances are industrial ones. And there the drop is real. Manufacturing moved abroad and electricity production moved with it. Maybe mass EV adoption can push the demand/production line back up.

> Seems like you don't live in the UK.

You are correct, I do not. This shouldn't prevent me from having an informed opinion though. Much like how I can write to you in English without living there.

[0] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...