Yes, it's night and day. From purchase to lounge to flight and even airport terminal, it's a completely different experience. American Airlines is not only bad overall but it's so f dirty everywhere.
And also every time there's a report, they rank this way
I always take my suitcase and my backpack to the airplane and then I check my suitcase at the gate. Three reasons. First, there are no baggage fees at the gate. Second, I can roll backpack on my suitcase. Third, I get to board early for "helping out". Why wouldn't you do this?
I do only check it if someone else in my party is already checking bags but that turns out to be most of the time for me.
Note: I'm actually replying to a reply that's too deep.
Normally gate checking is the better option, but you can't do it when flying with stuff that can't go into a carryon: bottles of wine, firearms, and so on.
The advantage of American, anecdotally, is most of their planes in the routes I've been flying have the sideway bag bins that don't fill up, so I don't have to play the standing-in-line and boarding group game.
Gotcha, good to keep in mind. I can't /stand/ dirty fart tubes (though, recently I used Delta and it was fine), but otherwise haven't flown much in the past 5 years.
If you want to go the extra mile (no pun intended), when flying out of an airport that is a major airline hub, avoid that airline at all costs i.e. don't fly United out of EWR, American out of MIA, etc. They tend to be ridiculously busy and crowded.
I remember a level where I went through a portal that led to the surface of a miniature moon, encased in a glass case inside the room that I entered through. Inside the case and miniaturized, I watched the enemy aliens scatter around to look for me.
They found me and barged through that portal, so I went back out and smashed them through the case. Alien pussies on the wall, the whole artwork and design of the game was utterly unfettered.
The ending made me feel so… powerful. David and Goliath -core, heavy metal native american going through the spirit land to save the human race from aliens. I didn’t know it was delisted. What a shame.
The scene with the planetoid hovering in the middle of a room was made me remember the game despite playing it more than 15 years ago. It was so ahead of its time!
I don’t know, but your question reminds me of this paper which seems to address it on a lower level: https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.06974
“Planting Undetectable Backdoors in Machine Learning Models”
“ … On the surface, such a backdoored classifier behaves normally, but in reality, the learner maintains a mechanism for changing the classification of any input, with only a slight perturbation. Importantly, without the appropriate "backdoor key", the mechanism is hidden and cannot be detected by any computationally-bounded observer. We demonstrate two frameworks for planting undetectable backdoors, with incomparable guarantees. …”
>Are they buying them to try and slow down open source models
The opposite, I think.
Why do you think that local models are a direct threat to Nvidia?
Why would Nvidia let a few of their large customers have more leverage by not diversifying to consumers? Openai decided to eat into Nvidia's manufacturing supply by buying DRAM; that's concretely threatening behavior from one of Nvidia's larger customers.
If Groq sells technology that allows for local models to be used better, why would that /not/ be a profit source for Nvidia to incorporate? Nvidia owes a lot of their success on the consumer market. This is a pattern in the history of computer tech development. Intel forgot this. AMD knows this. See where everyone is now.
Besides, there are going to be more Groqs in the future. Is it worth spending ~20B for each of them to continue to choke-hold the consumer market? Nvidia can afford to look further.
It'd be a lot harder to assume good faith if Openai ended up buying Groq. Maybe Nvidia knows this.
This conviction doesn't seem to acknowledge the problem at scale. Decades of great UI development will still leave out edge cases that users will need to use the tool for. This happens fundamentally because the people who need to use the tools are not the people who make them, they rarely even talk to each other (instead they are "studied" via analytics).
When /humans/ bring up the idea of integrating LLMs into UIs, I think most of the time the sentiment comes from legitimate frustration about how the UI is currently designed. To be clear, this is a very different thing than a company shimming copilot into the UI, because the way these companies use LLMs is by delegating tasks away from users rather than improving their existing interfaces to complete these tasks themselves. There are /decades/ of HCI research on adaptive interfaces that address this, in the advent of expert systems and long before LLMs -- it's more relevant than ever, yet in most implemenations it's all going out the window!
My experience with accounting ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H bookkeeping / LLMs in general resonates with this. In gnu cash I wanted to bulk re-organize some transactions, but I couldn't find a way to do it quickly through the UI. All the books are kept in a SQL db, I didn't want to study the schema. I decided to experiment by getting the LLM to emit a python script that would make the appropriate manipulations to the DB. This seemed to take the best from all worlds -- the script was relatively straightforward to verify, and even though I used a closed source model, it had no access to the DB that contained the transactions.
Sure, other tools may have solved this problem directly. But again, the point isn't to expect someone to make a great tool for you, but to have a tool help you make it better for you. Given the verifiability, maybe this /is/ in fact one of the best places for this.
Yesterday I spent two hours looking for something that I thought I needed. Ten minutes in I thought of an alternative solution that wouldn’t require the item I was looking for. I wanted to do more interesting things, but I still /had/ to find it. I’d accidentally end up doing it again when I try to stop. A friend who was observing this tricked me into eating something, and then I was able to stop.
If I forget a word mid conversation, I spend a lot of time trying to remember it. I can google or ask the chat bot, but emotionally I want to get there it on my own.
I think that I’m addicted to the feeling I get when I find these things or solve a very difficult problem. After reading an earlier article about “aha” moments, I wonder if it’s the same circuit. Maybe there is also a natural predisposition for hunting in my brain, which is why food seems to help me get past these … moments.
> I miss that kind of media discovery, our modern always-online world tends to smother serendipity.
I miss it too. I used to read computer game magazines as a kid. I recently re-evoked that feeling by subscribing to a linux magazine. Maybe there are still game magazines out there but i’m too lazy to look.
reply