nerdjon

I think it depends on what we consider "meaningless".

Is it "meaningless" that I hang out with friends on a Friday night? We didn't really accomplish anything except for possibly growing our relationships.

I think when myself and many people say we have "meaningless" sex it just means that beyond that particular moment, it doesn't have any other purpose. (beyond maybe its with a friend and it does the same as going out for drinks and just grows a relationship).

It was fun in the moment, but thats it. It is the same as going out for drinks, playing a game, or any other activity that I engage with friends with. Of course it's not truly "meaningless" or we wouldn't be doing it since we wouldn't be enjoying it. But it doesn't have to go deeper than that.

The way that my friends have described it.

Neither of them are actively looking, going to events, on apps, etc.

But if an opportunity presents itself with a friend or whatever they have already established that it’s fine.

It’s still open, but it seems the difference is seeking it out vs it just happening.

> I don't see many poly gay dudes

From my experience. I only know a few poly gay men. I know far more gay couples in open relationships that have similar lines that I do when it comes to anything beyond that.

I mean, for sure those lines get blurry. Things that you may traditionally associate with dating like cuddling on the couch at a party (just a party, not anything more) or similar things. But, there is still that line.

I do wonder why that seems to be the case. I am reluctant to get into stereotypes to explain it...

There is one issue that I have with this article and most discussions around polyamory. That is mixing in open relationships and poly. There is a massive difference between, you can do whatever sexually you want and dating other people. There is an emotional difference.

Myself, I am in an open relationship but I know that what I consider poly is a line I do not wish to cross. I know that just it is not for me. I don't consider myself poly. (To be very clear, this is not a judgement on being poly. I have several poly friends. I just don't know why we group all of them together)

Mixing these has made having discussions with some people more difficult. So I am not really sure why we are grouping all... non traditional relationship structures into poly.

That all aside. I find whenever this topic comes up to be quite interesting. I don't live in SF but I am a gay man. I know very few gay couples that are not at least "door ajar" as I have heard a few explain it. I have had a few people ask me why I am open, and honestly I don't like that question. To me the better question is, "why not?". And you may have a valid reason, maybe you are a very jealous person, maybe you just don't want too and thats perfectly valid.

But to me this boils down the problem isn't monogamy, being open, poly, or however you want to define your relationship (or lack of one). The problem is the assumption of monogamy. Not ever having that discussion, and honestly having the discussion without jumping to doing something because you think it's the way you are supposed too.

I do find some of the numbers presented here to be interesting, particularly the divide between men and woman. But I honestly can't really speak on that since I don't really have much exposure to this world outside of the LGBT world.

Is there any custom models or logic to this; or is this just a cron job wrapped around an LLM?

Capturing data, feeding it to an LLM, and hoping it actually does comparisons properly?

Is the LLM writing code that is being executed for each query or job?

Otherwise, all I am seeing here (and based on your comments saying "LLM") it just appears this grabs data, gives it to an LLM, and "magic output"

Your second part is technically correct since users have benefited from applications of ML of many years without throwing it being "ML" in their face because it wasnt as much of a marketing term as it is now.

Your first part, not true however. Many people are concerned, see the issues with it, and are frustrated and distrust it even more when someone so clearly tries to discount any concerns, fears, or just dislike of it.

Fact is, most users don't care about the underlying technology. Most users did not need "AI" shoved in their face to enable many of the ML workflows that we are currently seeing rolled out.

Apple has to balance it, clearly investors want to shove AI into everything but most users simply don't care or want to be reminded its "AI" every moment. Apple has to walk the line between both of these groups.

You are right about investors, but how many of those investors have also funded and continue to push for vaporware products and features? We have seen this many many times over the last couple of years. So I do think their importance needs to be downplayed since they are clearly making bad decisions.

Also, this article was about customers not investors.

Apple for years has been marking "Siri" as far more than just the voice assistant and instead encompassing many of their ML systems. For example the "Siri App Suggestions". I don't think that rebranding it would make any sense.

Its funny, I regularly feel like I am under utilizing my Apple TV given its price since it can clearly do more than Disney+, Youtube, and connect to Dolphin.

But thinking about it, the 2 I have I am pretty sure I bought in 2018 or something like that and they still work great. Zero pressure to upgrade. (which is likely not what Apple really wants). But it feels wild that my device released in 2017 is still getting software updates.

I have heard that there are apparently some TV's that won't let you use them without connecting them to the internet. But yeah, as long as thats possible than its fine.

But if I am always put into their home system, or some other crap I don't want to interact with even if I am offline. Or I get regularly prompted to connect. It is going to be very frustrating and I am honestly not sure what I will do.

Thankfully it wouldn't be too hard to get around the auto start on the same HDMI with a harmony remote or something with a hub to automatically switch it. Annoying, but fixable as long as it doesn't put up a box prompting you every time to connect.

I have a Vizio tv from 2019, been looking at getting a new tv. and I am honestly starting to wonder if I have just been living in bliss that I can ignore its OS completely past my initial configuration.

I disagree, I think the problem with surveys like this is the focus on billing everything as "AI" instead of just what it used to be as a nice feature.

A lot of the small things that Apple has introduced, are things that blend in and are not screaming "AI" at you. Which is a good thing.

So many of the things that are being pushed by other companies are AI crap that is flashy to show off but either the utility of it is nowhere near the promise due to fundamental issues with AI, or the novelty of it wears off and is actually useless and no one cares.

Sure I wish that Apple was a bit faster with some of this, but when compared to things like Recall, rabbit, or other vaporware. They are going about it the right way, we just need to stop trying to throw around the "AI" name on everything when most users didn't have "ML" shoved down their throats for the features that they used every day powered by (fundamentally) the same tech.

Honestly at this point did they actually bother to make something specifically built and trained to remove sensitive data or did they just modify a system prompt to "Don't save possibly sensitive data like credit card numbers" and hope that an LLM could magically handle this properly?

Why do I have a feeling its the later given all of the other issues around this entire thing.

I agree that what you're saying is a problem but if your doctor is not handling anything about your health properly why are you not finding a new doctor instead of saying you don't want to talk about something?

And I am not saying that your doctor needs to constantly bring it up, but at a yearly physical I would expect that anything that could be contributing to other issues or my health in general would be brought up no matter how many times it was brought up. There are exceptions to this that I would generally expect the doctor to know and you not needing to ask it.

I mean replace weight with any other thing that could (not saying it's easy or possible for everyone) change and it sounds ridiculous. I cannot imagine a doctor respecting being asked, I don't want to talk about me smoking. Or sitting all day for work, or other risky behavior. It's all part of your entire health picture.

There is a middle ground, and I agree that there are some people that have gone too far.

I think body positivity, validating those choices with models that represent more people is a good thing. As a society we should not be judging someone for their choices or making medical claims about their bodies when we don't know their story.

But I also see the extremes of just ignoring it, not even wanting your doctor to talk about it. (I do realize that there are some exceptions to this like when it comes to eating disorders) I don't understand this. I want my doctor to tell me everything, hell I will overshare in the hopes that something is a thing that needs to be addressed.

I have also personally seen a subset of people that push back on anyone wanting to loose weight. I have lost about 45 lbs over the last year (still not at my target weight but I am very close, about 5-10 lbs off so really not stressing and for context I am 6'5). A friend I have not seen in a while recently gave me a hug, commented that I was loosing weight and asked me "Why". I was put off by it, because why is that even a question? You would get mad if I asked why you were gaining weight.

My point here, there is a middle ground and there is a right and wrong place to address this. Society shaming someone isn't the right choice and ignores that we don't know what is really going on with someone.

You're talking about a closed system for a single game though, what exactly does a blockchain actually give you in that example?

All 3 of those are possible with a traditional database.

Even if they wanted to provide a system for sharing those assets and other marketplaces being able to built on top of it, a blockchain still doesn't actually provide any benefits.

First I should say that I agree with you fully.

However, the "5 years" timeline which yeah its crap with what they are saying. I do worry that what they are actually hoping (not paying for writers) for will actually happen. Since there is a lot of money in not paying people and pushing content that keeps people reading.

Just regurgitating information over and over again in different ways. Or taking stray quotes or whatever as the information.

I worry that the question isn't if AI is going to get better or how its going to answer some of those questions that you have when the people running the sites for news clearly already don't care and its going to happen anyways. It doesn't matter if the technology is any good or it's valuable.

Maybe at some point people will wake up and realize that the regurgitated content serves no real value, but at that point how much have we dug ourselves into this hole already.

I know that some people compare this to crypto but there is a much different acceptance level and... ease of use here that is making it actually gain traction.

One of the best things I did for my diet was to try to rein in all of the places that sugar was snuck into my diet so when I want to get a candy bar or a soda I can not feel bad about it.

My best example of this is peanut butter. I love peanut butter but started making my own with just dry roasted unsalted peanuts and a small amount of salt.

Still enjoyed the things I wanted and fully sustainable. Didn’t actually eliminate anything and no “cheat” days.

Somewhat recently I had a PB craving so I got a jar. Was shocked at how sweet it was.

This seems like a fairly standard practice used in a lot of systems.

Quite a few times I have bought something somewhere as a guest with my email, and then later signed up with that email and all of my history was suddenly in my account. With no confirmation of my email. This doesn't seem that much different in practice.

Admittedly there are a couple of odd things here. Them refusing to do anything about it and not contact the original purchaser, giving the last 4 digits of the purchasers credit card, and some other things probably should not be the case.

I would assume they have a process for "Put in the wrong email address at purchase", but maybe that falls apart when that email address is associated with another already registered user?

That seems the real problem here and not anything about privacy (and I am generally lean on the side of privacy here) when it all boils down to a mistake on the person there made the reservation and accidentally giving someone else their information.

As someone with over 200 board games.

There is one game I can think of with a fantastic rule book is Azul. But I think that’s partially a symptom of those rules being very simple to explain and really you can only appreciate how complex it can get by playing. A close second is secret hitler thanks to its rules being all over the game itself.

Other games then fall into 2 categories.

Over simplification: an attempt to not bore seasoned players leads to some rules being up for interpretation. This leads to getting through the rule book quickly but annoyances while playing.

Over explaining: to appease everyone they explain every single thing in extreme detail. It’s agonizing to read through and by the time you’re done you forget how the basics in the beginning (like turn order) work. Some address this by there being guides or hints on the board or whatever.

Personally I have become a big fan of games that introduce things piecemeal or have a basic set of rules but then the complexity is dictated by card text.

But that doesn’t work for every game.

You're right, but there are a couple of key points you are missing:

1. (And this is the most important) we literally have a solution to it not being safe.

2. When things are unsafe, we (generally) make sure that people are properly educated about the risks. The people pushing raw milk are doing the exact opposite.

3. When something is unsafe, we try to figure out how to make it safe or find an alternative (see 1)

Well my first question was going to be how are they enforcing a recall when (to my knowledge) it was illegal to sell in the first place.

But apparently California is one of the states where it is legal... why?!?

There is nothing wrong with an argument, but as the other person said this is not really being posted just for the sake of having an argument. On topics like this neither side cares what the other has to say because they have made up their mind.

This isn't like saying "Mexican is the best food". Which sure may get a bit heated but at the end of the day is a personal opinion argument.

Attempting to "argue" about someone else's life, who's existence doesn't impact you in the slightest, isn't an argument that deserves to happen. At the very least not in a public space and not without expecting the repercussions of it happening.

I actually did not know about what happened with Discord. I mean I think its still a cool concept but no reason to rely on it.

Especially when its so easy and cheap to store something in S3 and stick a domain in front of it for example.

I would be very curious how exactly this is being said and if it is just simply stating an "opinion" or if it is being used as a way to attack people and purposefully start a fight.

If it is the later 2, than them being "eager" is a good thing since that just feeds to toxicity and is a major reason that people have been pushing to move away from Twitter in the first place.

Even the first one I can understand since I really struggle to figure out why you would feel the need to repeat this if it was not an attempt to stir up an argument.

> I would be very reluctant to store anything important there.

Regardless of the reason, you should always be reluctant to store anything important on a platform you don't own. Focusing on this particular topic as the reason however is really just trying to start an argument that does not need to happen.

I think the problem with social media is there is just a lot of noise, and generally had a discoverability issue. I would like to be recommended people that I want to follow (and have what I put out be recommended to people).

I mean do we really need to remember the Facebook posts that people were making 10ish years ago that really was pointless?

That being said, that's the power of having some choice in the matter. If you don't want it, you don't need to use it. Both can be perfectly valid ways to consume social media content.

Does Spotify automatically pull in podcasts wether or not the people that made it want to be on the platform or not?

However I think the part missing (which again I am trying to fully understand what is happening here, their website really glosses over what is happening) is if Spotify was pulling podcasts from a place that served their own ads to instead serve Spotify ads without compensating where they got it from.

Which my understanding here, is what Musi is doing.

I was wondering about that as well, what lawyer looked at this and thought "yeah I am going to defend this".

That seems... wild.

If I am understanding this correctly, they are basically using what is hosted on Youtube for free (or are they paying Google somehow?), not showing youtube ads and then presenting their ads just when the app launched?

How exactly did they think that was going to be able to continue to run and not expect any pushback? If the ads were not there then you could argue it was just a free app, but they seem to be trying to make money off of other people's services.

While I am not crying for the money lost to google or the record labels. I still question how Musi thought this would work.

Is there some big part of this that I am missing?

Maybe this will finally be the time but every time there has been a “migration” it feels like Twitter still holds onto enough of a stronghold that most people don’t move over so you make the move but you end up back on twitter.

Particularly if you are using it as a tool to advertise your company, channel, stream, etc.

I would love for this to not be true this time. But I am not holding my breath.

Unless they choose some stupid name other than "Switch 2".

People understand Playstation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 just fine so that simply isn't true.

Also consumer confusion is not a good excuse to ignore having backwards compatibility.

That was never actually released so there is no "still".

Also worth mentioning that if that had shipped, it would have only taken affect if you uploaded images to iCloud.