tempestn

Many of those things are true in general, but fwiw I think we've done a decent job making the site fast and usable on mobile. It's comparable to the app in most ways, but many still prefer that.

At AutoTempest we resisted making an app for years, because anything that a hypothetical app could do, we could do with the website. And in my opinion, when searching for cars, it's more convenient to be in your browser where you can easily open new tabs, bookmark results, etc.

And for years, it was our most requested feature, by far. We had instructions for how to pin the site to your home screen, and would explain to users how the website does everything an app can do. Still, constant requests for an app. Finally we relented and released one, and very quickly around half our mobile traffic moved to the app without us really trying to nudge people at all.

People just really like apps! I think it suits our mental model of different tools for different uses. We've also found that app users are much more engaged than website users, but of course much of that will be selection bias. Still, I can see how having your app on someone's home screen could provide a significant boost to retention, compared to a website they're liable to forget. For us now, that's the main benefit we see. Certainly don't use any additional data, though I won't argue that other companies don't.

Why not just pay for premium?

Fantastic feature btw; certainly more than once I've wished weather apps/sites would show recent history.

Agreed. Using solar to power vehicles is great, but there's little benefit in the panels being on the vehicle. Put panels on your house, charge your EV, and you've got a solar powered vehicle (and house).

There's already Rybelsus. It's a bit more of a pain though as it needs to be taken on an empty stomach and you then need to wait 30-60 minutes before eating.

Those might've been some of the treadmill runs. Also looks like they were all one-milers.

You might add ICE cars to that list. All kinds of cool stuff being developed around small turbocharged engines and other efficiency gains, excellent transmissions, etc.

To me it seems like you're looking at this from a very narrow technical perspective rather than a human- and business-oriented one. In this case ChatGPT is effectively providing them free marketing for a feature that does not yet exist, but that could exist and would be useful. It makes business sense for them to build it, and it would also help people. That doesn't mean they need to build exactly what ChatGPT envisioned—as mentioned in the post, they updated their copy to explain to users how it works; they don't have to follow what ChatGPT imagines exactly. Nor do they need to slavishly update what they've built if ChatGPT's imaginings change.

Also, it's not like ChatGPT or users are directly querying their API. They're submitting images through the Soundslice website. The images just aren't of the sort that was previously expected.

The prompt is what's sent to the AI, not the response from it. Still does read like dystopian sci-fi though.

To be fair, he didn't specify that the reviews were false. Maybe he only agreed because he legitimately likes the vacuums. I think if someone offered me a product I like for free in return for a review, I'd do it. I wouldn't leave a positive review on a bad product though.

Pennies do. (More, actually.)

I feel like you're saying something like,"That expensive painting is inferior in every way to wallpaper, which covers the wall more effectively and durably, at a fraction of the cost."

The Rolex (or luxury watches in general) are pieces of jewellery that also tell the time. The more expensive ones have some combination of -more expensive materials -better finishing -superior craftsmanship (including more intricate complications)

The goal is not just to tell the time, it's to wear a piece of artistic craftsmanship. (Though I would agree that other brands are a better example than Rolex, and some people do indeed just buy expensive watches in general and Rolex in particular just to flex. As some do with art.)

I'm not sure it is arbitrary, just different from what it was a hundred or a thousand years ago. There's no real survival differentiation in modern society, and while classically beneficial traits like physical fitness and intelligence do help with finding partners, most people are able to do so regardless. The other big difference now though is that people can have sex without choosing to have children. So istm the most successful traits from an evolutionary perspective at this point are those that encourage a desire to have more children. (If there's a genetic predisposition toward religious adherence, that's a likely example.)

Yes, the genetics wouldn't have significantly changed over such a short period, but the environment has.

This is fascinating, and makes me wonder if human intelligence itself is such a cliff edge trait. For most of human history our advanced intelligence has obviously been a benefit, but now we see, as people and societies become wealthier and better educated (both correlated with intelligence), their reproduction rates drop precipitously. Perhaps we've overshot the intelligence cliff and evolution is now gradually pulling us back. (Evidence of this would be less intelligent people having more children on average than more intelligent ones.)

I'm not at all surprised that if someone has a psychotic break while using chatgpt, they would become fixated on the bot. My question is, is the rate of such episodes in chatgpt users higher than in non-users? Given hundreds of millions of people use it now, you're definitely going to find anecdotes like these regardless.

Not just recent. All hype cycles are like this.

From what I've seen, the AA batteries with built-in USB-C charging port are generally lithium-ion. I think they tend to include the port because they can't be charged in standard NiMH chargers. Also, because Li-ion cells are > 1.5 volts, they consist of a single cell plus a voltage converter. Since they already need integrated electronics, there's less sacrifice to make the voltage step-down bidirectional to integrate charging.

You can get Li-ion AA batteries without the integrated charging though; just means you need a charger made for them.

Very different situation; the norm against use hadn't been established at that point, and it was in the midst of a world war.

Ok, I see the logic, but nuclear weapon use is the brightest red line in the world. If there's anything a government wouldn't be forgiven for, it's that. I can't imagine how the calculus for the US would work out in favor given the risk. (Of course that assumes rationality, which one could certainly argue is lacking, but even still.)

Also 1000ft is an upper estimate, right? It's certainly possible the MOPs were sufficient.

Even after everyone corrected you with information on the specific ordinance used, you're doubling down?

When you say "the coast", do you mean travelling south down the Pacific coast after crossing the Bering land bridge?

Edit: ah, the earlier discussion covers this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44319585

This makes a lot of sense to me. When you ride in an Uber or a taxi, you're a guest in the driver's space. In a Waymo, it's your own space. You can play music, talk on the phone, etc. without worrying about disturbing the driver. You're not likely to have strong odors, or driver's phone conversations. And the experience will be roughly consistent each time. In an Uber, you have no idea what the car or the driving standards will be like until you're in it. I trust my own driving over a Waymo, but I'd trust Waymo over an average Uber driver, let alone a bad one.

I've had some nice conversations with Uber drivers, but I've had some unpleasant rides too. I'd definitely pay a bit extra for a good driverless car. ('Good' being key. After trying out the Tesla FSD beta a couple times though, you couldn't pay me to ride in one of those without the ability to grab control.)

I do something like this, but use notes in Evernote. Making them physical objects wouldn't add anything for me personally. (My wife loves writing down and crossing out to-dos on paper though. To each their own.)

Based on the Shopify example in the article, it's the latter.

Even if you're right, it's only true in the short term. Long term, everyone benefits from a sustainable country, and trillions of new debt isn't heading in that direction.

It's been a long time since I read the books, but I recall thinking the same as you. And I'm not sure it does entirely make sense, but the world today has made me realize that both people in charge and the population at large can do incredibly damaging things, even directly against their own interests, that appear to make no sense at all. So even if something truly does make no sense, that doesn't make it unrealistic.

That said, I do vaguely recall things making at least somewhat more sense eventually, but I've basically forgotten all the significant plot details (I'm not even 100% certain I finished the series; I may have caught up with the author and then forgotten about it), so I'm basically experiencing it all again for the first time.

One thing I'll say for the current era is that it has made a lot of such fiction appear more realistic in hindsight.

Another example is the Silo book series, recently adapted to a series on Apple TV. I remember reading those books thinking it was insane than the people would act in such clearly counter-productive ways against their own interests, or that leadership would make up elaborate lies rather than just telling people the truth so they would see why certain actions were necessary. And now I'm watching the same plot a decade later, and it all hits home.

This is actually interesting. What would make you believe it? Is there any evidence at all?

I agree that almost anything I can think of would be more likely some kind of trick. Or in the most extreme examples I'd have to assume there's a good chance I was experiencing some kind of psychosis. So I'm not sure I could actually be convinced either. I suppose if I personally witnessed clearly impossible miracles being performed and multiple people I know and trust corroborated what I was seeing, that might do it.