> The question is if it solved the puzzle correctly before Norvig's article appeared. It could have been trained...
This caught me by surprise — is there a suggestion or evidence that despite the "knowledge cutoff" OpenAI is continuously retraining GPT-4o's chat-backing model(s) on day over day updates to the web?
“I think the time has come to make the harder, but ultimately more impactful case: HTML and HTTP have the features required to build the vast, vast majority of website functionality; they're easier to use than the scripting alternatives, and they last longer with much less maintenance.”
We prefer same/shared screen co-op (Diablo 3 and 4, A Way Out, etc.), and story campaign PvE co-op (e.g. Wildlands, BG3).
Shared screen co-op is annoyingly difficult to find since "couch co-op" doesn't differentiate split screen versus shared screen and we strongly dislike split screen.
Story co-op is increasingly difficult to find. When you do find them, they tend to be less campaign or story and more "repeated encounter" scenarios (e.g., Insurgent). There is nothing like the strategically deliberate plan and work together pace of Wildlands since Wildlands.
Worse, recent co-op campaign games tend to be add-on modes to PvP, meaning you have to contend with ridiculous "balance" boosts and nerfs so nothing works like it should if it was a single player game. PvE should not be "balanced" this way.
If you didn't already try "It Takes Two" then you owe it to yourselves to try, although I don't know off the top of my head if it's playable as shared-screen.
It definitely ticks the "co-op story" game box though, and is overall a great game.
Like for Pikmin where in the later editions there were multiple main characters on the field that you could switch between. How was there not a local co-op where each player could use a main character?
If you liked BG3, have you tried the Divinity Original Sin series by the same studio? They're even better in co-op IMO and not being limited to the D&D rules makes combat more fun and dynamic.
Apple could enable the Name Drop feature of which fields to share:
If you’re sharing your contact card, tap the Show Disclosure Triangle, select the fields you want to include, then tap Save. The same fields will be selected by default next the time you use NameDrop.
On the contrary, it allows users to better than current "all or nothing" which today leaves users holding their nose and feeling forced by social monopolies into feeding their entire graph to resell to advertisers, data brokers, government monitors, and the like.
Note that a minority of social apps have done the work to match your contacts with your contacts' affirmative disclosure on the social network, without giving themselves new shadow contacts from your phonebook. Only those who "want to be found" will match up.
> So maybe this change is for the best.
It's possible to ... slurp respectfully?
If everyone did that, this feature wouldn't be needed. If EU wanted to legislate something, they could mandate something like an extrovert flag: this is my name tag, I want to be found! Given an app respecting this method of matching, then allow matching to be seamless after the first OS level prompt.
No users think the Apple device with the Apple Contacts app is or should be hiding Apple Contacts app contacts from Apple Mail or Apple Messages app. If you don't want your contacts in the Apple suite, don't put them in the Apple suite.
Similarly, if you use Microsoft Contacts, you assume you see those in Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Teams, and their devices using their OS.
Similarly for Google's suite, and their devices using their OS.
There are other Contacts apps, such as Clay (from clay.earth) that have other sets of contacts and can sync with still other contacts stores such as, say, LinkedIn. Those aren't visible to Messages without an affirmative action, so Apple is not advantaging itself.
If you're arguing that application suites aren't allowed, any number of users are going to be very annoyed with you.
If you're arguing that nobody can make both hardware and productivity assistant suite combined, you're either saying the PDA doesn't have a right to exist, or, saying that forcing the PDA to be open to other apps on the PDA in turn means the PDA isn't allowed to be an integrated suite now that it's open, and, I guess, saying Microsoft can't make Windows or Surface unless they spin off Office or damage what they make till none of it talks to each other seamlessly?
This entire line of thinking, that nobody's allowed to offer a seamless experience, seems like overregulation of what consumers are allowed to choose and buy.
The line of thinking here is that Apple should play fair. The power of defaults is very strong.
Most iOS users aren't going to be thinking of "Contacts" as "Apple Contacts". It's just the contacts on their phone. It's their contacts, not Apple's.
I think Apple should absolutely have to use the same permission prompts as 3rd party developers -- because this aligns the incentives to design a great user experience.
Instead, they have no incentive to design these prompts and APIs well -- in fact, a disincentive.
> No users think the Apple device with the Apple Contacts app is or should be hiding Apple Contacts app contacts from Apple Mail or Apple Messages app.
I am a user and you are wrong.
I absolutely want every app, regardless of vendor, to be sandboxed from each other. Without explicit permission, I don't want Mail or Messages to know that I have a contact card for the peer.
This caught me by surprise — is there a suggestion or evidence that despite the "knowledge cutoff" OpenAI is continuously retraining GPT-4o's chat-backing model(s) on day over day updates to the web?
reply