devindotcom

If you read it, you find the reasoning is this:

“Any reference to the ‘Gulf of America’ initiative on your Google Maps platform must be exclusively limited to the marine area under US jurisdiction,” the letter read. “Any extension beyond that zone exceeds the authority of any national government or private entity..."

So the issue is not the renaming per se, but that waters previously known collectively among all countries bordering it as the Gulf of Mexico have been wholly renamed.

The argument seems sound: America has no authority over waters beyond its territories, and its territories end some miles off the US coast. Beyond that border it is only logical for a company to refer to a body of water by the name more commonly accepted internationally.

you may believe it is a puff piece, and that's subjective, it's fine to think so. but saying it's paid for is a serious accusation and very different from "puff". big time news outlets like the NYT don't do paid content like that - if they have any sponsored content it will be prominently labeled or placed in the Opinion/Editorial section.

paid the new york times for a critical article with a triple byline?

Sure as a clock, tick follows tock. Can't imagine trying to build out cost structures, business plans, product launches etc on such rapidly shifting sands. Good that you get more for your money, I suppose. But I get the feeling no model or provider is worth committing to in any serious way.

Wow, love this. I of course love the classic color lettering (which really is quite tasteful) but I'm going to cop a "minimalist" black style for more formal occasions!

I look forward to reading this.

But anyone who thinks it's new should go back and read the first part of The Anatomy of Melancholy; there, a fictionalized Democritus, accused of insanity, turns the accusation back on the world at large, citing a surprisingly large and still relevant list of issues: information overload, self-serving politicians, charlatans, rubes, general bullshit. The phenomenon of meteoria goes back that far and further. I'm actually curious whether Carr cites Burton!

these are very different things

https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/03/why-does-the-name-david-ma...

oddly similar to murdle https://murdle.com/

My mistake, I didn't see that part. I thought the tablet treatment was just something they did to prepare it for testing. Maybe the tablets kill the microfauna via microplastic overdose.

Why not both? My guess would be, they release one type of horrible thing early on, then graduate to some other horrible thing through short term degradation.

We switched out plastic containers for glass and silicone for the most part some time back. Personally I was just routinely disappointed with the quality of the tupperware-type things, so why not spent a few bucks more once and get something that lasts? It still will have a plastic top or parts but you can at least heat it up in the glass part.

Looking forward to more testing like this. I've been trying to consciously avoid anything combining "hot" with "plastic" though there's only so much you can do.

Fish are aggregators of this stuff so that's not surprising. Spam and other processed meats and prepared foods also not too surprising (though what's with the Annie's organic mac and cheese being so full of it? Maybe it's the sauce?)... I think the tap water was the scariest one to me. Sure, you expect some but ... wildly unsafe levels?!

I realize this is largely a lost battle but strictly speaking "disinterested" means no interest in the sense of "conflict of interest." A disinterested party has no "interest" in one outcome over another and can therefore be trusted to be impartial in the matter. "Uninterested" means what you wrote, they are not interested in something in the more everyday sense of the word. Not everyone thinks it matters but the two words do have distinct meanings, and in some situations (like in conversations about values, politics, etc) it is actually worthwhile to be precise so that one does not inadvertently mislead the reader.

ICYMI this is part of a year-end "OpenAI is..." series from a bunch of writers

https://sherwood.news/tech/what-companys-past-reveals-the-fu...

cool. i support stuff like this even if it isn't quite usable for me or, really, practical even if it was! but i like to know it's there and if it was reasonably complete i would for sure keep a stable version on my machine.

Eno never misses does he?

In a 1958 collected correspondence between two famous authors, "everyone" has a very specific connotation! "Everyone likely to have picked up this book"

Definitely do Time Machine first, then his other "classics for a reason" the War of the Worlds, the Invisible Man, the Island of Dr Moreau, and IMO the Food of the Gods. His work tends to have a sort of bipartite structure where the second half diverges quite a bit from the first or there is a major thematic shift partway, usually as a consequence of "committing to the bit." Sometimes it seems like he has lost the plot, other times that he has found it. But the books are extremely readable.

And it seems, a snob of some standing himself!

I don't know that I would agree he is above James in "quality." Wells was of course great, but he also put out a lot of trash. James may have been the more limited of the two in tone, topic, and social politics, but his work is of a different caliber in terms of prose, complexity, and coherence.

>interesting but non-controversial non-ideological topics

this category is itself hopelessly controversial and ideologically delineated, as you have demonstrated. not to mention this is type of "stay in your lane" or argument is generally deployed by defenders of the status quo against dissenters.

>falsely posed as scientific truth, into a format that claims to be representative of science based information

but this didn't happen.

look, scientific american is a general-audience science magazine, not a journal for serious scientific inquiry. it has an editorial remit for commentary and exploration of themes and trends related or adjacent to science. you may not like the opinions or ideologies expressed in the opinion pieces they published, but they are clearly labeled opinion and in the opinion section. it is completely appropriate and dare i say non-controversial. it really seems like you just disagree with their selection of opinion pieces.

fwiw this is exactly what i thought - oai pursued it as a skillset (likely using a large chess dataset) for their own reasons and then abandoned it as not particularly beneficial outside chess.

It's still interesting to try to replicate how you would make a generalist LLM good at chess, so i appreciated the post, but I don't think there's a huge mystery!

Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion" - did they even read the normal news and analysis sections? Countless newspapers and outlets and actual scientific journals have opinion/editorial sections that are generally very well firewalled from the factual content. You could collect the worst hot takes from a few years of nearly any site with a dedicated opinion page and pretend that it has gone downhill. But that this the whole point of having a separate opinion section — so opinions have a place to go, and are not slipped into factual reporting. And many opinion pieces are submitted by others or solicited as a way to show a view that the newsroom doesn't or can't espouse.

Whether the EIC of SciAm overstepped with her own editorializing is probably not something we as outsiders can really say, given the complexities of running a newsroom. I would caution people against taking this superficial judgment too seriously.

I watched it recently, interesting film for sure. In his Cape Era.

we get lots of direct and unsolicited feedback actually, much more than paper days. a fair amount of it is threats though.

I've always loved this quote: "What audacious criminal, what mystifier, what maniac collector, what insane lover, has committed this abduction?"

Though Peruggia claims he did it out of patriotism, I've always nursed the theory that, during its absence, the original was used as reference to create several extremely good fake versions. These could be sold as the original, since everyone knew it had been stolen, and each would think they had the real one. Then the original is returned, and the buyers are without recourse. What are you going to do, tell the police? And of course Peruggia et al would say nothing.

I suspect this isn't true, but the fun part is that it could be and no one would ever know. So I'm choosing to believe it is so.

FYI (and to those concerned) I ended up changing the headline after Aravind clarified. Since they are an AI company offering AI-powered election-day tracking that would presumably have replaced what the striking folks supported, I think it was well justified at the outset, but now that he's backtracked would be misleading to leave it. Still not great!

This was entertaining, thanks for the link.

"Bending the knee" is a way to say that someone knelt - going down on one knee, a sign of loyalty and subservience. In this context it implies Bezos acknowledges Trump as an authority he submits to.

You want them to name... readers of newspapers?

Editorials, by an outlet's editorial board or otherwise, have consistently been among the most popular content in news for over a century. That includes endorsements.

This data is in the article

>So does that mean 75% _do_ find AI Feature helpful?

14% find it helpful

>Are 55% happy to pay a monthly fee?

6% are willing to pay

>66% have no privacy concerns?

no stat on this but I think we can assume based on the others that it is not split evenly because that was not the methodology