abhorrence

I think your points 1 and 2 are exactly spot on. And, assuming that both Rebble's and Eric's are being relatively forthright, that Eric is the one that is actually trying to come to an agreement that accomplishes that. Whereas Rebble is taking the position of "only we can be trusted".

And with all the people replying to the original Rebble post with "I'm canceling my preorder", I'm pretty worried that Rebble has created a self-fulfilling prophecy situation. :(

I'm torn here. I love that Rebble folks have kept things alive. I also love that Eric underwent the effort to make new hardware.

I'm also a bit sad that this is the first we're hearing of this tension, because it likely would've changed my decision to purchase a new Core 2 Duo watch, and I would've preferred this sort of falling out happen before a lot of devices have been purchased.

As someone who owns both a couple Vorons and a couple of Bambu's printers, I do think for a lot of people the difference between the two can be "3d printers are my hobby" vs "3d printers are a tool". It's not that Vorons can't be reliable, in fact a lot of the reason why say the X1C is so reliable is because its design essentially started life as a Voron. But because you have to assemble them, they just aren't as "plug and play".

They also do recalls. Which I’m certain is more than some cheaper no name brands do.

Interestingly I just talked to several lawyers who were annoyed at how many mistakes were being made and how much time was being wasted due to use of LLMs. I suppose that still qualifies as radically changing — you didn’t specify for the better.

My complete _guess_ (in which I make a bunch of assumptions!) is that generally it seems like the Ruby team has been more willing to make small breaking changes, whereas it seems a lot like the Python folks have become timid in those regards after the decade of transition from 2 -> 3.

The pencil company referenced in the article does not appear to have been part of the Mitsubishi zaibatsu however.

I once had a PM who loved the Pareto principle a little too much, and would constantly push us to "apply it" even after we already had. I got frustrated by this and drew the graph that goes along with your sentence, showing that miraculously about 99% of the work can be done with 60% of the effort!

My PM did not take the correct lesson away from the encounter.

Sure you do! It's how online schema changes tend to be done, e.g. https://docs.percona.com/percona-toolkit/pt-online-schema-ch... describes doing an atomic rename as the last step.

> As a result, once o1 becomes generally available, we will likely notice the persistent hallucinations and faulty reasoning, especially when the problem is sufficiently new or complex, beyond the “reasoning programs” or “reasoning patterns” the model learned during the reinforcement learning phase.

I had been using 4o as a rubber ducky for some projects recently. Since I appeared to have access to o1-preview, I decided to go back and redo some of those conversations with o1-preview.

I think your comment is spot on. It's definitely an advancement, but still makes some pretty clear mistakes and does some fairly faulty reasoning. It especially seems to have a hard time with causal ordering, and reasoning about dependencies in a distributed system. Frequently it gets the relationships backwards, leading to hilarious code examples.

Sadly it seems like some of the images have broken since it was originally posted. :(

Presumably they ignore the law.

> So no matter what you think of their current AUP they reserve the right to update it to anything they like in the future, and you'll have to abide by the new one!

I'm so curious if this would actually hold up in court. Does anyone know if there's any case law / precedence around this?

I've experienced something similar, but the chair's discharge was interfering with a PCI riser, tripping just over some threshold that would cause the OS kernel to panic and shutdown. It felt so incredibly unbelievable when we first noticed the correlation that we called tons of people over to watch us demonstrate it just to see if there was something else we were missing.

Couldn’t you make a similar argument about protection rackets? Their experience shaking down places for money helps them build better defenses against it, right?

“All but X” is an idiom in (at least American) English which means essentially “99%”. So in this case it didn’t literally cure his insomnia, but is so close to having done so that it may as well have.

The only thing I can imagine here is that many of the games have "dle" or "le" suffixes and sometimes even describe themselves as "Wordle, but...". It seems more likely that it's NYT's lawyers hoping to bully the "competition".

Presumably because the computers can also charge via their USB-C ports.

Could easily be that the 39% of adults that don't tip take an outsized portion of the rides.

Presumably in this case it has something to do with how Hershey owns the rights for Kit-Kat in the USA, but Nestle everywhere (at least as far as I know) else.

I suspect this majority of the court would think social media is perfectly within their rights to do that -- after all, Citizen's United makes it clear the court thinks corporations have first amendment rights.

"since effectively all pork in the U.S. would have to be raised to CA standards in order to be sold to CA customers"

Couldn't producers decide not to sell pork to California? Or perhaps to segment production?

The way most of these companies are colluding now is by using third party firms that "aggregate industry salary information". So basically company X provides their data, pays some dollars, and get access to what other companies in their "peer set" are paying for different types of levels/experience. Reminds me a lot of the schemes companies will sometimes use to do bribes in other countries -- paying a third party consultancy who they had "no possible way of knowing that they were actually just bribing people".

The article isn’t saying that he didn’t know it was red, but rather that he wasn’t actively thinking about trying to match the color. Obviously there’s a question of conscious vs subconscious thought, but the claim is at least that he chose red/brown because it would represent grayscale well.

Recently there have been Waymo vehicles out on the streets in the Seattle area. I even saw one driving around the day it was snowing here.

I suspect we’ll start seeing more training and testing in places with less nice weather as time goes on.

It’s sad though, since the laptop was such a refreshing experience when I had one many years ago.

The 10 -> 11 bump also coincided nicely with the Mac OS X -> 11 bump.

I expect they mean that people who frequently use chopsticks at home are likely to have reusable ones.

I'm really keen to hear from someone who knows a bunch about X and WL to hear why there's such a huge difference in line count here. Is this analogous to OpenGL vs Vulkan where WL is a much lighter layer than X is?

The vision but seems plainly wrong to me, many (and I’d posit most) musicians who have been playing their instruments for years can play with their eyes closed. Definitely would test proprioception though!