nerdjon

While true, that does not seem to align with what the checkboxes for firefox, looking at many of the ones that Safari does not support other non chromium browsers don't support on any OS. Mobile or not

I am curious why Safari in particular is getting a lot of the hate here when firefox supports even less of the features which leads me to believe that the reason many of these features have not been accepted is because they have not been accepted by the larger ecosystem and is just google pushing their own things as standard (Feels like IE days in many ways).

That being said, I am not sure why I would actually want most of these features in the browser? Many of these things feel like they further complicate what a browser is supposed to be doing and opens up security concerns at the same time.

I think the idea of using a web app for many tasks instead of apps is fine, but I don't think the idea that a web app can do everything is the way to go.

Edit: To be clear about the Firefox comment, notice that many of the features that are not supported non chromium browsers don't support on any platform. So the question on whether these are considered web standards is outside of whether iOS allows other engines.

Edit again: Apparently the third column is based on your current browser instead of always comparing chrome, mobile safari, and firefox like I assumed. I am currently on Firefox on Windows, and there are more red X's under Firefox for me. Seems like a weird choice to not always compare all major browsers.

I am still quite shocked that anyone looked at the side by side images within Nvidia and actually thought this was good and no one would have an issue with this.

Now I will admit that if you don't compare them, the final image looks ok. Like if I did not know what was happening I likely wouldn't give it a second thought. It looks off but so many video games already look off that I don't think I would have really thought anything other than "well it's a video game".

But when compared to the original image it is so obvious that the artistry and the original intent is just completely lost.

They claim that the developers and artists have more control over this, well maybe if that is actually true (because we all know guardrails on AI have been perfect so far...) they should have been involved in using that control for the video showing this off. Otherwise I honestly hope this never ships.

But even if it does, the power requirements for this make it kinda DOA anyways.

I have been waiting to for the next version of the Max for a while and I am disappointed that we still don't have some sort of wireless charging solution for it.

My biggest issue with the Max I have now (and why they just don't get a ton of use) is keeping them charged. I would love for a dock or something. I know there are third party solutions but they require putting a little plug into the plug in the headphones, and it is not hard to find issues that people have had with those so I have not done it.

An official solution from Apple would be amazing, something as simple as what the Astro A50 does.

I am... cautiously optimistic without Whedon being involved. But also very curious how this will work since it doesn't seem like it's a reboot, unless I missed something.

Tara Butters from Dollhouse being involved makes me a feel a bit better, since I love Dollhouse (actually rewatching it right now). Now I can only hope this actually succeeds and maybe Dollhouse can get similar treatment.

I am sure some will be upset that it's animated, but if that is what it takes (and it turns out good) I'm fine with it.

There are a lot of websites that only support third party login, so that is not always an option.

They don't have to bend for another, but they made a choice to put an app on iOS. They added support for apple signin, and then for some reason did not put it on their website.

You can criticize Apple for requiring that all you want, but they clearly have support for it and are choosing to not put it on their website which is causing a worse user experience.

IF apple did not support website loggin than sure, but they do. So the ability to fix this is on Anthropic (and many other websites).

If you are already going to support third party login you should not limit it to only Google accounts and there is no reason to support Apple on iOS and not the web.

Also for the record, Apple only requires sign in with apple if you already support third party authentication. So if you are already going to support that, giving the user more choice (and making it so we are all a bit less dependent on google) is a good thing.

They could also just implement sign in with apple on their website, they have the ability to sign in with google so not supporting Apple is still a weird choice they are making.

Apple should not have had to require developers to have options other than Google for authentication, but clearly some companies have to be dragged kicking and screaming.

So clearly they support it, and there is no reason it should not work on the web also.

This was my first thought as well, all this does is further remove the user from seeing the chat output and instead makes it appear as if the information is concretely reliable.

I mean is it really that shocking that you can have an LLM generate structured data and shove that into a visualizer? The concern is if is reliable, which we know it isnt.

It is also a critical part of watchOS.

I am still sad that they stopped putting it into iPhone, I think the tech is great and the watch really proves what can be done with it when it is a fundamental part of the hardware and the OS can be built around it. But we never had a situation that every compatible iPhone had force touch so everything that could be done with it had to work in other ways.

I think the iPad made that even more complicated since I doubt we would have ever gotten it on a screen that large, if it would have even worked.

As far as it being on the trackpad, it is honestly pretty wild when you realize it. It does an incredible job of faking feeling like it is actually moving. Was similar with the fake home button that some iPhone’s had for a little while.

I know it is not the target use case this, but I have been thinking more and more about how this could serve a need of a terminal or a kiosk computer in a scenario where a tablet may not be the most suitable due to the need for a full keyboard.

I use an iPad mounted to an arm in the kitchen for cooking but always had issues whenever I needed to modify a recipe (or add a note for later modification), I am debating on switching it out for a Neo. Possibly some other use cases of a permanent computer in places that a tablet worked but a full computer would be far more flexible.

I just first need to find an arm that would be rock solid enough to not wobble a ton while typing, if anyone has any recommendations.

I keep wanting to build this but I have seen people talking online that they changed the legs and they are now hollow and not really suitable for this.

That has made me very cautious to use this for any serious amount of mounting.

Edit: Apparently there is a section on that page about it, but does not give a ton of confidence that it won’t give me a lot of issues.

Uhh... you know when the Mac's were Intel they specifically made a tool for installing Windows on your Mac and shipped drivers for Windows.

It may have entered public discourse but it is not being talked about as much outside of tech spaces, and we are up against the companies pushing the complete opposite narrative.

All I can say is that I am having conversations with non technical people regularly that are not aware of the issue or think it is a largely solved issue.

I do think that for this particular situation we need to step outside of our tech bubble a little bit.

I am still having regular conversations with people that either don't know about hallucinations or think they are not a big problem. There is a ton of money in these companies pushing that their tools are reliable and its working for the average user.

I mean there are people that legitimately think these tools are conscious or we already have AGI.

So I am not fully sure if I would jump too quick to attack the judge when we see the marketing we are up against.

A properly built tablet OS UI would also have those differences in the OS that make it more than just a larger phone screen, which so far seems to be most of what the foldables are doing with a gimmick thrown in here or there.

iPadOS may not fully be to the point of being an OS UI that really utilizes the benefits of a tablet sized device, but it does have elements that are unique to it that would not really make sense on a phone.

That being said, if your tablet use case really is just a larger phone than a foldable would be great. But i know for myself the way I use my iPad it would not be a suitable replacement. Especially not now, maybe in 5+ years once someone figures out how to make an OS that actually manages different ways of interacting with it in different form factors work, but that has yet to happen.

Even though these tools are showing time and time again that they have serious reliability issues, somehow people still think it is a good idea to use them for critical decisions.

Still regularly get wrong information from google’s search AI.

Really starting to wonder if common sense is ever going to come back with new tech, but I fear it is going to require something truly catastrophic to happen.

I feel like I am really struggling to see the issue here with pricing, it is still a very cheap subscription and it does what we need it to do. And they were one of the ones that came out better in that recent security analysis of password managers. I see a lot of people upset here and I don’t get it.

Did they need to increase the price? Honestly I don’t know, without seeing their financials it is hard to say. But I would much rather they be able to be sustainable.

It likely doesn’t help that they are facing more and more free competition from Google and Apple. I know I have been considering a switch to Apple Passwords after the recent changes to it. I doubt this will excelerate it or anything because I will still want somewhere as a secondary area incase I loose access to my apple account.

Why did I see the headline and my first thought was the “Scientific Method” episode of Voyager.

That being said, I am curious what the use case is. It mentions data storage but the QR code is not really storing data (ok it is storing something obviously but not in the traditional sense).

> "Tie-in sale": the business practice where a seller conditions the sale of one product (the tying good) on the buyer’s agreement to purchase a different product (the tied good)

I will keep my response to this part in particular limited because I have limited understanding of this law. However based on doing a little bit of searching around the law is not as cut and dry as you are presenting it to be. It is possible that Claude code would fall under being fine under that law or no one has gone after them. I honestly don’t know and I don’t feel like having an argument that it is highly likely both of us don’t fully understand the law.

That being said I do question how exactly “Claude code” differs from those services as a digital good.

> I don't care about Claude Code. I do not want it and do not need it. All I care about is the access to the models through the client that I was already using!

OK! That is not what you’re paying for as part of Claude Pro, end of story. You are not paying for the API. It is no different that the people that have a free plan and can only chat through the web and the app also don’t get access to the API even though it is obviously using an API to access those endpoints as well.

Or are you also going to argue that free users should have access to the API because they are already using them in the browser.

> No, it is not! I paid for Claude Pro. Claude != Claude Code.

Claude Code is one of the features you are paying for as part of Claude Pro so yes in a way you are paying for it. And again not on that list is the API.

Like I mentioned somewhere else I can see why some people think they are entitled to do this and I also fully understand wanting to do it from a cost standpoint.

While I do personally disagree with thinking that you should be able to do this when it was never sold in that way, at the end of the day as a customer you can choose if you want to use the product in the way that they are saying or use something else if you don’t want to support that model.

However the person I was responding too brought up legality which is a very different discussion.

What law is actually being broken in Brazil?

Are MMO’s illegal in Brazil? Is PlayStation Plus illegal in Brazil? Is Spotify, Apple Music, etc etc etc also illegal in Brazil?

It would be ridiculous to argue that I could pay for a subscription to World of Warcraft and make my own third party client to play the game with. (Obviously you are free to argue it all you want but I would be very surprised if this was actually illegal).

> And in many cases like Claude Code and the Anthropic models, they can and do work perfectly independently.

Unless I am mistaken Claude Code does not have a local model built into it, so it requires a server side component to work?

As far as the Anthropic models, yes like many other services they ALSO have a public API that is separate from the subscription that you are paying for.

The critical difference here being that in the subscription it is very clear that you are paying for “Claude Code” which is a combination of an application and a server side component. It makes no claims about API usage as part of your subscription, again the technical implementation of the service you are actually paying for “Claude Code” is irrelevant.

When it comes to “Claude Code” for all that we should care about, again given that “Claude Code” is what you are paying for, they could be sending the information to Gemini or or a human looks at it. Because it’s irrelevant to the end user when it comes to the technical implementation since you are not being granted access to any other parts of the system directly.

> Tie-in sales between software and services is not different from price dumping.

I disagree, in many cases what you are specifically paying for is the combination of the software and the service that are designed to work together. And in many cases do not work independent of eachother.

There are countless cases of this, that what you are paying for is a thing that is made up of a piece of software and a serverside component. MMO's (and gaming in general) being a major example of this, but so are many of the apps I pay for subscriptions for on my phone.

The actual technical implementation of how it works is irrelevant when it is clear what it is you are paying for.

> "Both parties are okay with the terms" is far from being sufficient to make something "legal".

True but the opposite is also true, just because you don't like the terms it does not make it illegal.

Then I would not use it because it does not work the way I want it to work...

But if that is the service they are making and they are clear about what it is when you sign up... That does not make it illegal.

I can see why people think they should be entitled to do this, but it does not align with how they are selling the service or how many other companies sell services. In most situations you don't get unlimited access to the individual components of how a service works (the API), you are expected to use the service (in this case Claude Code) directly.

> This is, plain and simple, a tie-in sale of claude code. I am particularly amused by people accepting it as "fair" because in Brazil this is an illegal practice

I am very curious what is particularly illegal about this. On the sales page nowhere do they actually talk about the API https://claude.com/pricing

Now we all know obviously the API is being used because that is how things work, but you are not actually paying a subscription for the API. You are paying for access to Claude Code.

Is it also illegal that if you pay for Playstation Plus that you can't play those games on an Xbox?

Is it illegal that you can't use third party netflix apps?

I really don't want to defend and AI company here but this is perfectly normal. In no other situation would we expect access to the API, the only reason this is considered different is because they also have a different service that gives access to the API. But that is irrelevant.

That is a hell of a lot of trust that people are putting in to download and upload unknown files.

The risks that you download and start spreading malware or worse CSAM. You really don’t want that sitting on your disk.

Admittedly the risks is lower if the list is coming from Annas Archive, but this is still putting a lot of trust in an external list.

Much better off doing this manually, finding the list of what you want to seed and vetting that list yourself.

Not everyone that interacts with a service is interacting with it directly? How is this a serious question.

A thing called API’s exist and if your users rely on it but your not interacting with it directly yourself, seeing this could save you time to investigate an issue.

Or you are using it yourself and seeing this post confirms it is not just you having an issue and you can move on with your day.

This has nothing to do with it being AI and it being a large service. It is the same with posts about an Azure or AWS.

There has to be some sort of automation making these issues, to many of them are identical but posted by different people.

Also love how many have the “I searched for issues” checked which is clearly a lie.

Does Claude code make issue reports automatically? (And then how exactly would it be doing that if Anthropic was down when the use of LLM in the report is obvious )

I will say that 11 LTSC is also a solid option. I run it myself and I don’t have any issues with it, and it lacks a lot of the crap that Microsoft has been trying to shove in.

At some point there might be compatibility issues with Windows 10 (especially with it now being EOL) so if your a gamer 11 LTSC might be the better choice.

The downstream effects of this are extremely concerning. We have already seen the damage caused by human written research that was later retracted like the “research” on vaccines causing autism.

As we get more and more papers that may be citing information that was originally hallucinated in the first place we have a major reliability issue here. What is worse is people that did not use AI in the first place will be caught in the crosshairs since they will be referencing incorrect information.

There needs to be a serious amount of education done on what these tools can and cannot do and importantly where they fail. Too many people see these tools as magic since that is what the big companies are pushing them as.

Other than that we need to put in actual repercussions for publishing work created by an LLM without validating it (or just say you can’t in the first place but I guess that ship has sailed) or it will just keep happening. We can’t just ignore it and hope it won’t be a problem.

And yes, humans can make mistakes too. The difference is accountability and the ability to actually be unsure about something so you question yourself to validate.

> It's quite indiscriminate in Software, for sure, I feel like people don't care whether you used an AI to write your code as long as it works.

I don't think that is really the case.

We are seeing pushback on games developed using AI. Communities like /r/selfhosted is very much pushing back against AI slop code.

While right now it seems like for the most part the concern is from more technical people, we are seeing issues of vibe coded applications shipping bugs because the quality is poor (just look at the bugs shipped in Claude Code).

I think we will be getting to a point of people questioning the quality of the application they are using and whether or not a human was actually involved if bugs start shipping more often.