Email seems like not only a pretty terrible training data set, since most of it is marketing spam with dubious value, but also an invasion of privacy, since information could possibly leak about individuals via the model.
> Email seems like not only a pretty terrible training data set, since most of it is marketing spam with dubious value
Google probably even has an advantage there: filter out everything except messages sent from valid gmail account to valid gmail account. If you do that you drop most of the spam and marketing, and have mostly human-to-human interactions. Then they have their spam filters.
I'd upgrade that "probably" leak to "will absolutely" leak, albeit with some loss of fidelity.
Imagine industrial espionage where someone is asking the model to roleplay a fictional email exchange between named corporate figures in a particular company.
Microsoft didn’t control the number one search engine, the number one email client, the number one video site, probably the number one online office suite, the number one smartphone platform…
It was possible to rip people away from Microsoft. That may not be something we can do this time with Chrome.
Try telling someone that moving off of Chrome may mean moving off of every single Google property because Chrome is the only browser they work on by then.
See how easy an argument that is. It’s right up with there with “stop helping capitalism and move to the woods“.
Then it’d be time for round two of antitrust, and I doubt the judge and regulators would feel so understanding about Google keeping Chrome if that is the landscape.
1. The US isn’t doing this. They have a case but aren’t calling for breakup
2. We all know howling anti-trust and appeals take
If Google gets handed the web (let’s say) this year by Apple being forced to allow them, it could be a decade+ before the Google side gets tackled.
And I’m afraid of how much damage they can do in that timeframe.
I think fixing Google’s ownership over Chrome before forcing other browsers on iOS would be less harmless than forcing iOS to allow other browsers than doing Google.
I’m totally good with doing both. I worried about the effects of the order they’re done in.
And I am only saying this about browser engines. This should not be taken to say Apple should be able to do some of the other nonsense they’ve been doing for 10+ years abusing their position.
I think they might be, but only as long as it stays open-source (assuming we mean it works on Chromium and not Chrome). Honestly, I fundamentally don't have a problem with an open-source browser having a monopoly, because the open-source nature means that if things get bad you can always just fork it and make something better.
Wealth inevitably concentrates in the hands of the elite no matter the economic conditions. There are plenty of failed states where all the wealth ended up in the hands of warlords and dictators.
It’s something that regularly has to be dealt with in societies separately from the economic situation.
There are those who think massive concentration of wealth is not a problem at all and is just a product of healthy capitalism. Tax is theft, and individual property rights are above all else.
There are others who want some kind of communist revolution, where the entire structure of society and property ownership is changed. The workers should benefit from their work as much as the managers.
Personally, I feel like there's a middle ground to hit. We should be able to make changes to our current system in the US without needing anything too radical.
We have some good examples from the last century, such as trust busting, the New Deal, and the Great Society. These programs made major improvements without changing the country's fundamental economic system or growth trajectory.
For a major revamp, you should either do it or not do it. Making it opt-in or even opt-out means every app then has to try to support both different UIs, which is a longterm maintenance cost. Not only for Apple, but the entire ecosystem.
I personally sort of like the liquid glass, but it's also kind of a mess in a lot of edge cases. I feel like it was an interesting idea that didn't really pan out fully and should have been scrapped. It's just too controversial for pure eye-candy.
I’ve never heard someone describe the aluminum body as bad.. what do you not like about it?
The number one benefit is the Apple Silicon processors, which are incredibly efficient.
Then it’s the trackpad, keyboard and overall build quality for me. Windows laptops often just feel cheap by comparison.
Or they’ll have perplexing design problems, like whatever is going on with Dell laptops these days with the capacitive function row and borderless trackpad.
Just curious in case somebody knows. Are OLED displays in laptops bad at low light? He cites that as a reason he doesn’t want OLED, but I’ve never noticed such a problem on OLED phones.
I'd say the inverse is true: OLEDs are the best in low light, as they generally dim well and black means zero illumination of the pixel. Author is ill-informed. Also, OLED burn-in is a non-issue with current displays in any normal situation (e.g. not a kiosk or arcade or other sort of always-on static dashboard).
No, those are generally not always-on in normal use. People let screens shut off, open up fullscreen apps, etc. Most OLED firmwares also have subtle pixel shifting and pixel refresh on shutdown routines, as well as very conservative brightness settings. OLEDs in normal use are actually less susceptible to color shift deterioration than LCDs in normal use.
I'm using an OLED X1 Carbon right now in the UK. I use it all the time in low light.
I just turned all the lights off (even the Christmas tree) and ran through a handful of usage situations and couldn't see any issues. I turned some lights on and did the same, I couldn't see any issues. I asked Claude, and got told to do the finger test, and that is barely perceptible. I then used my phone to record the screen and yes - I can confirm that there is an effect that my pixel 9a's camera picks up, barely noticeable at 240Hz, and definitely noticeable at 480Hz.
Maybe the guy is particularly sensitive, but from the framing of the rest of the article I think he's blowing a few things out of proportion.
I probably should've done a better job at clarifying this, but my issue with OLEDs isn't just that (at least historically) they tend to be too bright even at lower brightness, but also the other issues they come with such as burn-in and text potentially looking less pleasant compared to IPSs displays. Burn-in is probably my biggest concern here, especially since it really seems to be a case of winning the lottery or not (i.e. for some it's fine for years, others get burn-in after just a few months).
Basically I just trust IPS more than any other technology :)
Burn-out probably depends on the model, not a lottery, but shouldn't be a major concern for typical usage patterns in recent models. The text issue is caused by a pentile subpixel layout which are no longer common. I love OLED for low-light evening usage because IPS displays always have some backlight bleed, whereas OLEDs can display true blacks/pure warm tones which I find much more pleasant in the evenings. IMO power consumption is the only major downside of OLED displays for general-purpose laptops and phones.
I've only recently bought OLED laptops so I can't speak to burn-in but out of the three I've tested, they have a lower minimum brightness than my other IPS laptops.
In terms of text clarity, "2k" OLEDs (1920x1200) are a bit blurry. IPSs and 3k OLEDs are noticeably sharper, with not much difference between each other.
A lot of computers with OLED displays use PWM for the low brightness levels, and he seems like the type of person who would be sensitive to that sort of thing.
PWM is the only useful way to drive an LED and the people who deny this are, to me, hilarious. In fact for the author's stated use case of low light conditions PWM really is the only way to do it without wrecking accuracy (and efficiency).
My no PWM laptops look fine to me for watching movies. Sure, less efficient. But if I can't look at it for more than 30 seconds without my eyes burning then what's the point?
reply