I dont have any unreasonable trust in software. I just understand that nothing LLM sphew out actually runs on either GPU or hardware that GPU plugged into.
Neither LLM weights aware of any of the code it runs on.
I'm sorry to prolong this thread, but what I mean is: networks are just software layers, the operational systems, the driver code, the firewalls, switches, the other server, the sandboxes, the TPM. That and all security policies we put on them. All software layers waiting to suffer a buffer overflow.
I suppose you are not think big (or internet) enough.
A single data center is easy to solve. Just unplug it.
What about a botnet with decentralized command and control that we will never be able to eradicate? One with so many nodes and able to hack with zero days so that any machine connected to the internet will be instantly attacked?
One botnet so powerful that we will try to build another internet so that we can actually use it again.
It’s like Kessler Syndrome, but the rocks are malicious network packets honed to exploit the recipients.
Just let them communicate on the Bitcoin blockchain. "We" would have to freeze the chain and lose access to "our" billions of wealth, so not going to happen.
They are not trying to kill us, just trying to understand the average salary of undergrads by their family upbringings. Your machine can contain the data they need to solve this, please join the swarm.
Except they all depend on the OpenAI API. Cut that off and they all stop. Finding an alternative source of compute is not easy, and even once done it's easy to cut off.
Frontier models don't fit on a normal GPU. The datacenter architecture frontier labs use is not a commodity. What you're describing is beyond the state of the art, and if we go there then anything is possible.
This is so hilarious, apple selling volume up and down as it were some fantastical feature and not have been present in air pods pro since god nows when.
> Force sensor with volume swipe arrives on AirPods 5, a first for the open-ear form factor, adding the ability to quickly adjust volume by swiping up or down on the stem.
Only if "pure marketing juice" means "plainly telling people about a straightforward feature they're adding to one of their products." Which like, okay, that is what marketing is, but are you suggesting they don't tell people?
Two separate models from Huawei have swipe volume controls (freearc and freeclip). I’m not a earbud guru but my $25 anker buds have tap to hold volume controls (not swipe, I’m sure Apple is being specific for a reason), but no matter how you move the goalposts it’s a ridiculous claim.
No they don't. The two Huawei models mentioned are completely different form factors, that are much more open-ear and further from squishy silicone than any Airpods.
This is exactly the assumption that the carefully worded juice hopes you'll make. That Apple's claim to innovation precludes even a cursory glance at the competition
They don’t have the squishy silicone, but you sound so confident! Tim Apple or his replacement aren’t giving you any prizes for your shilling, it’s ok to like Apple products and see how stupid their marketing is.
can confirm my Huawei Freebud 4 have swipe volume controls, anc and do not have silicone tip. Which is one of the reasons I got them after my Gen 1 Airpods started to annoy me on Android.
Because they're being very awkwardly specific in order to make it sound like they're the first to do it.
For the average consumer who doesn't know that if you look outside of their disclaimer you'll find that it already exists and think that apple invented the feature
If memory serves, it’s only on the ones with the wireless charging case. They get a few quality of life upgrades over the base AirPods, without stepping all the way up to the Pros.
They make aftermarket tips that are a bit smaller. Still to big for my ears so I switched to the newer "cuff" style and am reasonably happy with them except when I want noise-cancelling.
The swipe controls are terrible on my Pro 2s and make me miss physical buttons like on my ancient Jabra 65t. It's easier to reach into a pocket and push the volume buttons on my phone without unlocking or looking at it.
Oh man, I loved the 65t! I remember Jabra making great true wireless headphones. They were small, sounded ok, had actual buttons but operating them didn't push the earbud against the brain.
Miss that a lot. Nowadays it's all touch and I hate it so much because for some reason I have a problem spatially locating them and always end up touching it the wrong way (and yes, I know... ;)
i still use their conference speaker for calling and music and is the primary sound for my computer. i like it and it has worked really well for the last 5 years.
The marketing kool-aid must flow. Many other earbuds have swipe volume, but because they aren't open-ear Apple gets to claim this amazing breakthrough.
> … apple selling volume up and down as it were some fantastical feature and not have been present in air pods pro since god nows when.
I’ve been having to throw away my earphones and getting new ones whenever I needed a new volume setting. Going up and down in the same device is truly a game changer.
I know it's silly but I enjoy listening for the "this is our X-est Y yet" during these events. It's incremental improvements I enjoy, but it's like a mini trope for me.
for those who were holding out from Gen1 or whatever, adding pro features at a non-pro price is definitely incentivising. I’m not sure why we’re pretending it’s not.
Would you rather have generation old Pros or brand new standard airpods which have the pro features you actually want.
apple has been quite good at treating their "economy" products with the same level of respect as their premium ones, as far as I've experienced. the Neo is significantly more powerful than the Pro I bought four years ago and $100 cheaper, pre-inflation accounting. A brand like Apple introducing a highly-capable "discount" product goes against all common sensibilities for a company whose branding is anchored on prestige. Plus the extended support window for older devices vs. their competitors in the smartphone space.
I think it’s nice and I think they covered it right in the video.
Do you want open ear (AirPods) or closed (AirPods Pro).
Some people can’t stand having something in their ear. The volume control is a nice feature to have and now it’s available on the cheaper ones. I’ve missed it on my 4s.
Yeah the marketing copy is marketing copy and Apple never references competitors. But if you like the non-pros it’s a nice upgrade.
> Do you want open ear (AirPods) or closed (AirPods Pro).
I'm holding out for the next Pro model as I genuinely benefit from closed headphones/earbuds. Open is nice in a controlled environment but I'd rather have that slight seal when I'm somewhere noisy.
My Pro 2s are genuinely very comfortable and still work great after 2+ years of moderate use, so haven't felt a need to upgrade to Pro 3 yet. I use aftermarket foam-like tips and find they seal great FWIW.
>Do you want open ear (AirPods) or closed (AirPods Pro). Some people can’t stand having something in their ear.*
Both versions put something in your ear.
There are wireless earbuds that stay outside next to the ear, that are actually the ones legitimately called "open ear", but the AirPods aren't that type.
>for those who were holding out from Gen1 or whatever, adding pro features at a non-pro price is definitely incentivising. I’m not sure why we’re pretending it’s not.
Because it's a non-feature even the cheapest $30 wireless earbuds have had since forever, often even better, like with physical buttons.
So what are you saying? Because there are cheaper earbuds made by someone else with this feature, Apple _shouldn't_ add it to their earbuds? I'm not sure why that would be the case.
Where exactly do I say "Apple _shouldn't_ add it to their earbuds"?
I'm saying as an "incentive" to get to the new version of airpods 5, it's a lame one, since the feature existed in all kinds of cheaper earbuds for years, and Apple should have added it in already, not leave it for the Pro models all this time.
You seem to be saying contradictory things. You're saying it's not a good incentive, but you're also saying Apple should have added it already. Why should they have already added it if it's not a good incentive? Why should they add it now if it's not a good incentive?
My argument is that adding it makes their product better, so they should add it. And if they add something that makes their product better, that's an incentive to buy it.
As somebody w/ Celiac, you'd be surprised. Many a time I've been poisoned by normal gluten free things being tainted by poor manufacturing lines, or companies mixing in other product. Tortilla chips with gluten, Hashbrowns/Potatoes coated with wheat flour, so many things are made not-gluten-free for no reason.
There is always a reason and it usually has something to do with money. We really need to find a cure for Celiac 'cuz wheat is just too ingrained in our culture to be removed. (pun not intended, but also not removed so...)
Some brands use wheat to make the chips more crunchy. Just like IHOP puts wheat in their scrambled eggs. McDonald's uses wheat in their french fries. They stick wheat everywhere.
There are tortilla chips that do contain gluten, or are cross-contaminated with it. A gluten-free label means they guarantee <20ppm gluten in the product. That’s useful info!
Given that the way the company worked was the cause of the problem, sending the email company wide would have caused more confusion that solve the problem.
beware: you can spend your life avoiding the thing you know you must do. You can even become rich or famous or get any other external validation you deem important in the process of not doing the thing you know you must do.
The thing you know you must do probably is an internal thing, but can also be an external thing. It's hard to navigate this, but no one cares if it's hard.
There is an immense pot of gold at the end of this rainbow and if the theories about ASI are in the general correct direction, only one winner will get it.
It makes no difference if the pot do actually exist, because the prospect of it being real make not getting it the end of your company.
reply