unlikely I think, they're likely doing this to garner some interest in their company but they seem pretty interested in revenue (judging by the companies they're working with)
I'm equally laughing because I remember a coding snafu I ran into once, where we were aggressively filtering out "1488" turns out someone finally joined and "1488" was part of their user ID (auto-increment field!), and we realized maybe we shouldn't be checking the auto-increment field, not sure if it was me being too aggressive and not thinking about it, or another developer, but I did laugh once I figured out why that one user was unable to use half of the web app. This was for a gaming community based project, we had a lot of trolls come and go, and they would definitely shove these sorts of references in their usernames, and anywhere else you had custom user input.
It’s very easy to check & see there’s at least one paper from 2023. Also it takes time to know which papers are influential. But better to contribute than speculate… what are the seminal ML papers from the last 6 years that should be on the list?
not saying what the EU does is a good thing but why don't I ever see any legislations like this from the US? we'd still have lightning on iPhones if it wasn't for the EU so some of what they introduce is net positive...
Agreed. I really like the feature. For people saying it's quite bad, from speaking to an engineer on that team at Google he says it's literally the output of a tiny LLM being fed the top websites results which makes sense to me.
why does it matter to you if it's AI or not? if you enjoy a song you shouldn't resent it just because it's AI generated. Me personally there's many AI songs that I like and enjoy listening to.
Because I care about art being a human endeavor. AI doesn't create art, it regurgitates an unidentifiable goop churned together in its stomach by all the crap its eaten. There is no thought. There is no feeling. There is no meaning. If you only care about the sound, that's cool, enjoy it, but I don't.
This product was incredibly ambitious but the real miss was the market fit for what they were targeting.
They still continue to make the highest quality consumer hardware on the market, by far. My macbooks and phones are expected to last (and have lasted) nearly a decade and for that reason alone it’s worth staying in the ecosystem for me.
> This product was incredibly ambitious but the real miss was the market fit for what they were targeting.
Why is it that Apple gets 'participation' brownie points? When a movie flops, we dont go like 'The project was incredibly ambitious, but the market fit was bad' - We just say that 'it is a bad movie because nobody watched / liked it'.
Huh? Just because a movie flops at the box office doesn't necesssarily mean it's bad. There a plenty of examples of movie flops that later became cult classics.
If I remember correctly, Office Space did particularly poorly at the box office but it’s totally a cult classic that I’m sure a good chunk of this community has watched.
Shawshank Redemption is much better example of this IMO... Absolute bomb at the BO that ended up being not just a classic but won like a millions Oscars as well
10 years ago was pre apple silicon which is an orders of magnitude more impactful win than anything else that you might want to hold against them. So I'm not sure how you go from being a die hard fan 10 years ago to not just because you dont like a vr headset and the software has gotten a little sloppy.
I would have said that 7 or 8 years ago when MacBooks were absolute garbage. Now, the only complaint I have is that the 'control' key isn't in the bottom left corner like it should be.
