I asked it to summarize this thread [0] and it just said "that thread is about the monthly "who's hiring"' on HN", not even close.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43533516

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nova#Spanish

Often repeated, but it doesn't make any sense to Spanish speakers. Nova is a word on its own.

Would an English speaker assume a hammer is made of ham?

In terms of value for money, I would probably go with GPT-4o mini and not Nova Pro. Maybe Amazon feels that it needs to have their own offering to stay relevant?

For many larger enterprises, governments, etc, the barrier to trying these things is to pay for them (new contracts, RFPs, etc).

But all of them already have enterprise agreements with MS, Amazon, etc. So there must be some class of customers to whom it's easy to just add this to their AWS bill.

I can't imagine AWS is going to get much usage of these models... but you have start somewhere I guess.

AWS already has Amazon Q, which is its chatbot offering for AWS customers.

https://aws.amazon.com/ai/generative-ai/nova/

Amazon Nova Chat is a different product that uses Nova, buts it not AWS. Notice that if you try to use Nova Chat, you log in using your Amazon.com account and not an AWS account.

In time the average american consumer will understand the monetary value of their PII and usage metadata and demand adequate protections - which effectively is all that GDPR does. Given the actions of the current cabinet, I feel we are in fact accelerating towards this inevitable outcome.

Data locality in legally compatible jurisdictions is the most fundamental form of protection there is. Without concepts such as Safe Harbour and data locality, handling of PII would be farcical amongst MNCs.

Re: Demands on Encryption? The most prominent mention of encryption is in Article 32(1)(a), which mentions the “pseudonymisation and encryption of personal data” as measures that organisations can adopt.

However, it is important to note that encryption is not compulsory. Instead, the GDPR takes a risk-based approach, meaning that the decision to encrypt data depends on the sensitivity of the data, the risks involved, and the potential impact on data subjects.

Backing up demands with fines is about the only way consumer protections are realised as corporate mandates rather than friendly advisory. Name me another comparable legislation that achieves its goals without resort to punitive measures for non-compliance?

In short, you would far better understand the intent, purpose, and reality of GDPR if you engaged with it as a piece of vital EU consumer protection legislation, rather than some sort of draconian shake-down of American Capitalist practices.

In reality, GDPR is a jobs program for eurocrat auditing and consulting firms combined with an effort by Facebook and Google to prevent European competition. Note that GDPR fines are big enough that they can crush a small company, but small enough that Google wouldn't care.

The notion that this is either a consulting gig fix or an effort to prevent European competition is naive and farcical in the extreme. The three highest fines for Meta (1.2b, 405m, 390m) total €2 Billion. More than every other GDPR fine combined.

https://www.enforcementtracker.com/

Note that GDPR fines for individuals and SMEs are in the 3 to 5 figure range, and come under very basic grounds following repeated warnings. The intention is not to 'crush' anything, least of all SMEs in a globalised marketplace.

This is quickly evident when you look through the fines, whereby the only entity that wasn't a major company with hundreds of millions in turnover to break a fine of €5 million was a Croatian Debt Collector with absolutely appalling violations of basic data control - including processing minors, processing people with no debt at all, and monitoring things down to progression of terminal illnesses.

https://azop.hr/debt-collection-agency-eos-matrix-d-o-o-impo...

The most common by far is Art. 5 and 6 - Insufficient legal basis for data processing, followed by Art. 28 (3) and Art. 32 - Insufficient technical and organisational measures to ensure information security.

These are basic compliance requirements, mirroring something like PCI but for personal as opposed to cardholder information. Framing this as some lobbyist wet dream of Goliath vs David is just so much FUD.

Well, you don't. Can't find a simple way to try it out. Not that i expected anything else. The only thing saving AWS in the AI wave seems to be their deal with Anthropic.

That said, there is a larger problem: every team is incentivized to ship as fast as possible, and good UI takes time and consistency across every team. As a manager with a team that works closely with design systems, it's a brutally hard problem to get right and nobody wants to slow down in the design phase or have limitations placed on them for the purposes of consistency.

I could go on for pages, but https://www.youtube.com/@zeroheighthq has a design systems wtf podcast that has gone on far longer than me.

The image generation looks like it's at least a full year behind.

I wonder if this will squeeze cloud GPU pricing even more or it's already priced.

Eh, not really. They are behind in this 'race' on GPU stock as well as spare power, and I question if they will be able to truly catch up before the interest wanes.

https://nypost.com/2025/02/07/business/amazon-shares-fall-on...

Unless I've missed it, which is totally possible, I don't see anything in the UI or the settings that lets me change to a different theme.

Of course a trademark of a common word might arise naturally from being in the market and becoming widely recognized (e.g. Apple), but you can't file a trademark for it until you have become widely recognized.

This is why Nova is a very popular term for products.

The difficulty comes from the obligation to protect a trademark - if you have trademark rights to a term and don't take reasonable steps to protect it, you're at risk of losing your rights.