To be fair, it’s a fair assessment. Superhero movies like that are a defining feature of the last two decades, with titles and plots worsening at an exponential rate. Not that prior decades lacked superheroes. They just used to be less superficial.
But this is for apps outside the Play store, so the DSA isn’t at play here insofar as Google needs to be concerned. I don’t think there’s any solid decision on whether third-party app distribution is subject to the trader requirements, but if/when there is, it’d presumably be on the alternative distribution platform to enforce, not Google. Plus, Google already adjusted its policies to comply with the DSA.
For the record, Apple notes that the DSA requirements only impact developers distributing through the App Store, not through alternative distribution [1].
But this isn't a problem on one system, it's potentially a problem in any system with Copilot enabled. It's akin to a vulnerability in a software library (which often means a separate CVE for every affected product, not just one for the library). CVEs also limited to issues impacting multiple systems; even if a vulnerability only affects one product, ideally a CVE should get made. The 'common' aspect is the shared reporting standard. See my other comment on this thread for more on that, or Redhat's explanation here: https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/security/what-is-cve
CVEs aren’t just for common dependencies. The “Common” part of the name is about having standardized reporting that over time helps reveal common issues occurring across multiple CVEs. Individually they’re just a way to catalog known vulnerabilities and indicate their severity to anyone impacted, whether that’s a hundred people or billions. There are high severity CVEs for individual niche IoT thermostats and light strips with obscure weaknesses.
Technically, CVEs are meant to only affect one codebase, so a vulnerability in a shared library often means a separate CVE for each affected product. It’s only when there’s no way to use the library without being vulnerable that they’d generally make just one CVE covering all affected products. [1]
Even ignoring all that, people are incorporating Copilot into their development process, which makes it a common dependency.
I’ve lived on both sides of this in different areas of the US. Overall I’d say there’s a lot of places that have what you’ve described, but there are many that don’t, even in more urban locations. Sometimes roads lack sidewalks, parks/skateparks/etc close for repairs but never reopen, local events stop getting funded for one reason or another, or high crime rates make people weary about leaving patio furniture out. All of those contribute to a lack of stable third spaces and associated connections with people.
Other countries have similar issues, of course, but often (not always) they have more cultural factors keeping third spaces alive. In my experience traveling Europe and Africa, community and familial ties generally have a more active role, so there’s just more opportunities for stable third places to develop. It’s not that the spaces are different, imo, but they do seem more common.
Lambda has 1mil free requests per month, so there’s a chance it would be free depending on your usage. But still, it’s not straightforward at all, so I get it.
Perhaps requiring support for bill capping is the right way to go, but honestly I don’t see why providers don’t compete at all here. Customers would flock to any platform with something like “You set a budget and uptime requirements, we’ll figure out what needs to be done”, with some sort of managed auto-adjustment and a guarantee of no overage charges.
I also don’t know for certain, but I’d assume they only cache AI responses at an (at most) regional level, and only for a fairly short timeframe depending on the kind of site. They already had mechanisms for detecting changes and updating their global search index quickly. The AI stuff likely relies mostly on that existing system.
This seems more like a model-specific issue, where it’s consistently generating flawed output every time the cache gets invalid. If that’s the case, there’s not much Google can do on a case-by-case level, but we should see improvements over time as the model gets incrementally better / it becomes more financially viable to run better models at this scale.
In the U.S. at least (obviously not the same everywhere), fair use doesn’t necessarily require your work to be transformative. It’s one of several aspects that gets considered, albeit a fairly significant one in many cases. Downloading books/research articles/pirated works in general wouldn’t be fair use as the purpose of the act (obtaining a book to read) directly impacts the market for the work (selling books). There could still exceptions in some cases, mostly related to teaching I’d imagine.
I took their meaning to be that we should keep looking into the whole matter since, either way, there might be more evidence to find. I don’t think they were dismissing this theory or its implications for political/ideological reasons—since they mentioned it seems plausible—but I could be naive.
In any case, clearly the prevailing understanding is wrong in one way or another, and that should be reflected in curriculums alongside this new evidence.
Apple's Critical Alerts aren't a broadcast system though. It's just an API to bypass the mute switch and DnD, but users have to go into settings to enable it on a per-app basis. The alert is otherwise just a normal notification.
It does tend to be used for public safety notifications, but it's strictly opt-in. There are also several apps using it for smart home security alerts, health reminders, etc. already.
I have a negative perception of both LinkedIn and OKCupid, and of matchmaking services in general.
The strength of these platforms is the same as their weakness: they aim to eliminate suboptimal outcomes. While that is beneficial on the surface, I take issue with how it effectively rules out any chance of unlikely matches somehow working out. The question of “Do I give them a chance based on just a feeling?” never needs to get raised. Considering how significant both personal and professional relationships are in people’s lives, to me it’s akin to deciding someone’s fate on the basis of a prediction. It doesn’t leave much room for people to exercise free will, or it at least doesn’t prioritize it.
From the standpoint of optimization above all else, these services are immensely valuable, so it makes sense to at least consider them for various purposes. However, for me, the benefits are outweighed by the feeling of infringing on people’s free will.
Articles get removed from Apple's documentation archive seemingly randomly. However, on a good note, there are backups of the entire ADC Leopard Reference Library (available at several places online). That covers that vast majority of all the documentation Apple's ever produced. There's also the Apple II FTP archives, which have older but often less applicable documentation, but are definitely still valuable troves of information.
Apple's documentation used to be quite good—many useful guides, thousands of technical notes, development books quarterly—it's really a shame that they've turned their back on that. Their old docs leaned toward being overly detailed, which some complained about at the time, but I'd much prefer that over near radio silence.
Apple's also been deleting more and more of its old documentation. Much of the it can only be found on aging DVDs now, or web/FTP archives if you're lucky. Even more annoying is how some of the deleted docs are _still_ referenced modern docs and code samples.
Even if they did, I’d assume the association of “full” and this correct representation would benefit other areas of the model. I.e., there could (/should?) be general improvement for prompts where objects have unusual adjectives.
So maybe training for litmus tests isn’t the worst strategy in the absence of another entire internet of training data…
On one hand, I get the business reasons for not using E2E by default (it’d make data recovery more difficult for probably the vast majority of their users, which would be a customer service headache). Hell, even some experienced users would be more inconvenienced when something goes wrong. But if they won’t enable it by default, the option to enable it needs to be MUCH more clearly presented to users. The current implementation leads users to believe their data is more private than it is, which imo is just asking for trouble down the line.
On Apple devices at least, this is a feature of Universal Links, which are generally more secure than deeplinks for various reasons [1]. Not sure you can disable it completely, but in some cases you can override it by long-pressing the link and choosing to open it in the browser.