I know, it's lame. Over that amount of time Apple with the help of third party developers could have walked much of useful distance we now are trying to run to with LLMs for controlling devices. Unfortunately Apple neither wanted to give up the interaction point to developers nor develop it themselves, and only gave users some control super late with Shortcuts.
Personally, I think the trade offs for more window space is worth it versus window positioned app menu bars. If you really are trying to maximally optimize menu bar navigation you go with the menu bar as a context menu wherever your cursor is, or a key command to prompt searching for the menu option you want to use.
As for 3, the way you'd solve this while retaining the 'global' menubar style is by treating screens more individual and having a screen unique menubar. Introduce screen focus, and have the screen focus follow where the cursor is. Further you could make it so that when a screen regains cursor focus it also refocuses the last window on that screen. The menu bar would then serve the purpose of visually indicating and emphasizing which app on which screen has latent focus even when the screen lacks focus itself. (Which now saying it honestly might have been an original MacOS consideration before losing focus caused window dimming)
> It's surprising how quickly a room with a closed door and one person can go from ~ambient CO2 levels to 1000ppm+.
Yeah, having seen myself how quickly it happens i've recently been thinking of finding automatic window openers that would respond to CO2 levels reported from either my aranet or on its own.
This has been how I've framed a lot of the expenditure despite lack of immediate substantial new revenues. Everyone including Google is driven to protecting current revenues from prospective disruption. But the vulnerability AI created for Google is to other companies worth positioning themselves to take advantage of if Google falls behind and loses chunks of marketshare.
>Do people not have an understanding of fundamental Software Engineering principles from OGs like Parnas/Liskov/etc.?
I believe this hints at a major culprit contributing towards the sentiment and use of OO in practice over the years. I'm going to say no people don't. Even if someone goes through education, it won't often require engaging with multiple formative past perspectives at length.. even though there is real value to these musings by comparing and contrasting them altogether first hand.
It is ironical that today when you have a vast body of knowledge literally at your fingertips people seem to have no curiosity nor drive to figure things out for themselves starting from the original sources. Everything seems to be mere parroting and inane opinion pieces with no concept of nuance. People seem to demand a black-and-white (i.e. tell me what is right and wrong) cut-and-dried (i.e. tell me what is settled and decided) answer to all their doubts/queries.
They seem to not understand that nothing in Software Engineering is a definite law but are simply reasonings based on empirical deductions resulting in agreed upon principles/heuristics. Thus meta-principles drive abstractions resulting in concepts which are then expressed via language features. Now, a language feature expresses only those aspects of the fundamental concept that its designer decided as "correct" (i.e. his/her perspective) which is never its full generality eg. Inheritance expression in various languages. So people need to ask themselves "What is the fundamental concept that i am trying to express via this feature?" and slowly work upwards from specific features to general concepts to even more general meta-principles.
It felt like the headset hardware had reached a sweet spot for the moment, but with this announcement the software situation is now also going to be reaching a similar place. Now we have a continuity of freedom with a PC OS on the headset away from home as well as the full mobility of a untethered headset display with the full power of a stationary PC at home. Can't wait to see what dev's do with this.
“All four of us who fired him came to the conclusion that we just couldn’t believe things that Sam was telling us, and that’s just a completely unworkable place to be in as a board — especially a board that is supposed to be providing independent oversight over the company, not just helping the CEO to raise more money.”
I think I have to disagree here because they talk about loss of trust. Loss of trust is enough when deciding who you want to work associate with. Firing seems steep, but when working with someone feels forever untenable, your options are really you or them exiting. There's not really an in-between option to balance the response for how much the issue crossed the line of trust when you don't see it coming back.
Maybe they shouldn't have lost total trust at Sam's behaviour. But personally I'd lean towards it being a pretty normal response from people existing in the environment itself; whom are at the time feeling the active shift effect Sam was having on the power balance to their detriment.
> especially a board that is supposed to be providing independent oversight over the company
This is an important point. OpenAI is a nonprofit who's stated mission is to ensure that AI benefits all of humanity. Overseeing the business entity that exists under it's umbrella, and ensuring that the actions it takes are in accordance with that mission, is THE critical component of the boards job. This structure is very weird for a non-profit, and the stakes here are existential.
If you cannot trust the CEO of the company to not deceive and manipulate you, you absolutely cannot have confidence that the companies actions will conform to their mission.
Altman is a sociopath and they should have never caved to his political machinations
I think the medium where information transformation happened was for many the only artificial line between what they called processing and what they called thinking. The caveat for others being that thinking is what you do with active awareness, and intuition is what you do otherwise.
That caveat to me is the useful distinction still to ponder.
My point of contention with equivalences to Human thinking still at this point is that AI seems to know more about the world with specificity than any human ever will. Yet it still fails sometimes to be consistent and continuous at thinking from that world where a human wouldn't. Maybe i'm off for this but that feels odd to me if the thinking is truly equivalent.
The problem is that we use the same words for different things, which I think is risky. We often draw parallels simply because we use terms like “thinking,” “reasoning,” or “memory.”
Most of these comparisons focus on problem-solving or pattern recognition, but humans are capable of much more than that.
What the author left out is that there are many well-known voices in neuroscience who hold completely different views from the one that was cited.
I suppose we’ll have to wait and see what turns out to be true.
I'm not disappointed at how far Affinity has pushed the baseline for graphic design software up until this point for me with V1 and V2. I'll stay tentatively hopeful that we don't see this backslide in V3 even though i'm not expecting the same development velocity for new baseline features outside of the subscription now.
I'm not that hopeful though.. with freemium, everything is subject to be clawed back slowly into a subscription if the subscription offering fails to perform well enough.
I agree because it reads as it will process in the direction I normally read. But I do think one of the benefits of the function approach is that the scope isn't cluttered with staging variables.
For these reasons one of the things I like to do in Swift is set up a function called ƒ that takes a single closure parameter. This is super minimal because Swift doesn't require parenthesis for the trailing closure. It allows me to do the above inline without cluttering the scope while also not increasing the amount of redirection using discrete function declarations would cause.
The above then just looks like this:
ƒ {
var users = db.getUsers();
var expiredUsers = getExpiredUsers(users, Date.now());
var expiryEmails = generateExpiryEmails(expiredUsers);\
email.bulkSend(expiryEmails);
}
reply