Because it's not the treasury building lol. There are multiple buildings near the White House that are under this umbrella, and I wouldn't think Treasury is one of them since they need their own office space.
Fable 5.1 is good for better knowledge and tasks that require a more meticulous output, and it's objectively better at design and mockups IMO, but I rarely resort to it outside of that.
I generally use Fable for high-level blueprinting, architecture, and technical planning, and I tell it to write most of its documentation in a way Opus 5.5 will understand and maximally benefit from; with the added prompt for Opus to concede when a task would be better off to bring Fable back in. I've had ZERO problems.
I mean, read the decision. Any evidence that proves whether a contested event or action was "official" or not is inadmissible in court. The Courts cannot investigate the President's motives when deciding whether an action was official or unofficial, and prosecutors cannot use evidence of immune official presidential acts to establish criminal liability, even when prosecuting separate, unofficial conduct.
We simply HAVE to take the Executive's word for whether an action was official or not.
This comment makes apology for grifting, and a good case for bad-faith dialogue - whether to troll, to be unreasonably contrarian, or otherwise.
They gave their money for a Cybertruck, and the liquidity from those reservations was most likely use to posture company assets/P&L, earn interest in a treasury, and whatever other financial weasel techniques that the lawyers and financiers of the world's first trillionaire - Elon - have in mind to use.
Customers didn't get that, and instead had a hold on their money for reasons and means BEYOND receiving the particular commodity that they offered their money for. Forget the pro-regulation and antitrust crowds being discussed in this comment section, you'd be hard-pressed to find even a Laissez-Faire economically-right individual that sleeps well to that notion.
I think they wouldn't have cracked down on it so much if there wasn't in-app purchase crackers (IAPCracker, IAPFree) that directly threatened their revenue bottom-line, and forced developers to deal with in-app piracy.
I think, if a deal was struck with Saurik/Cydia Team and Apple to explicitly not do that, there was a much better chance the jailbreaking community would have held.
"Up arrow, Up arrow, Down arrow, Down arrow, Left arrow, Right arrow, Left arrow, Right arrow, 'b', 'a'", inside or outside of the input field, does nothing.
It does work, but only on https://america.gov/chat (i.e., after sending a message first), not the front page. Also, note that the Konami Code actually ends with "Start".
Your theory is that project 2025, rather than just being a straightforward result of right-wing politics (cut welfare, reduce trans rights, etc) is secretly intended to make people more supportive of private equity taking over everything. You say this is obvious, but I don't see the picture you do, which makes me think confirmation bias might be at play. Note that I'm not defending right-wing politics, I'm just pointing out that the "secret twist meaning" isn't necessarily true.
Christ, thank you! I’ve been saying this for years and no one I’ve spoken to, even engineers, could acknowledge the level of “chunking” that’s been engrained in them over the years for turning inquiries into keyword/phrase shorthand, and that this is NOT something most people want to do, and is the killer app of Google AI. This time around, you CAN type in an input box what you would say to a human in everyday conversation, AND expect a reasonable response. That’s invaluable to a casual user.
I've always felt that "proper" and responsible LLM use for search [0] would be two boxes: You can describe what you want in the first, and it'll propose search terms in the second, and then those get executed normally.
Yes, the "average user" [1] might not usually care about the second box... Until they need to because the query/results are wrong.
Showing them in tandem means:
1. Users are at least capable of learning through exposure.
2. Users may realize a key term can be added which the model could never have guessed.
3. Users may recognize a term in there that doesn't make sense, allowing them to detect a translation error.
4. If good search-terms leads to a bad outcome, it is possible for someone to report and diagnose it, rather than a fully black-box mystery.
_____
[0] Not just for websites, but also things like internal business software, or SQL queries.
In the words of Edsger Dijkstra, "Projects promoting programming in 'natural language' are intrinsically doomed to fail." I think for something as bespoke as a search engine, a DSL that accepts quotes, logical operators, and specific terms definitely allows for far greater specificity than natural language can (at least in an equivalent amount of text).
I think the two-tiered input-output approach you propose makes sense. Allowing users to inspect and mutate lower-level languages allows the user to make modifications as needed. I think it's very much in the spirit of free software.
But then again, for text-based search specifically (search engines, notes, etc.), I think there is some value in querying the LLM directly, as it is able to fuzzy search by inspecting its weights. This results in a lesser degree of specificity, which allows for more false positives, but can maybe capture similar words (i.e., synonyms / typos / tenses) or higher-level semantic concepts.
Maybe they're just two different search algorithms, and the user should be able to choose between them.
Thanks for linking the article, I found it very interesting.
Your described thinking pattern does not apply to 95%+ users, and might add confusion leading to retention loss (e.g. 2 text boxes? Wtf, two boxes? What do i type in the second one? Whatever i’ll switch to the usual). Every project with at least 100K non-tech users I’ve worked on, has shown that sort of thinking just doesn’t translate.
And regarding “average doesn’t exist” - that’s true. But no company does a/b testing to land on average. I’d assume a good 85%-kinda pass rate for these type of experiments.
I think A/B testing may have value in selecting a specific path preferred by 85% of users, but it seems like alienating the remaining 15% doesn't feel great.
95% of users might not want the double-textbox, but 5% might, and some might want to use it someday.
I think, make enough of these decisions, and there's bound to be mounting friction for users with different preferences navigating your app.
Ideally, the app should offer a way for the user to intuitively configure the app to their own liking.
When an experiment passes, you don’t really lose that 15%. Most of the time they just get used to the other behaviour. Case in point - we’ve been whining about Google’s deterioration of search queries for ages, yet we’re still using it.
Ideally, yeah maybe, but why bother with extra implementation, support, costs and etc., when people fold and use the new way anyways?
It's not just engineers, I think it's more an age thing.
For a certain cohort (eg those currently between 35 and 45) who did any sort of grade school computer/library classes in the 90's/early2000's, 'chunking' or keyword searching was one of the main skills taught.
>"a measly 750K exit"
No kidding, lol.
reply