I didn't realize it reset for every word, so I was worried I was done on 8 words, but by getting that one at the wire, I was able to limp to 17.
At least for today's words, it was a reasonable difficulty ramp, and a pretty easy experience! If I had one note it's that clicking the text of a letter doesn't remove that letter from the word (while clicking the background of a letter DOES remove it).
I'm with you. I get that this is akin to asking a human, because we're trying to reason, so we will bring along (assumedly) unavoidable deficiencies of human reasoning. But if I were to ask a human genius this question, ne would grab a calculator and employ it as ne did the rest of ner reasoning.
So it seems like we should probably teach LLMs to "use a calculator", rather than try to get them to be more right when doing math 'in their head'.
I don't know how you would have come to that conclusion, after reading the article? It says pretty plainly that the new government regulations, which force airlines to show all "additional" charges alongside the ticket price, means that Southwest's bundled price will now SHOW as cheaper, rather than showing as a larger base price (but less without the added additional 'baggage check' fees, or whatever) than other airlines.
Basically, they took a principled stand to not show their prices in place where it would LOOK worse (without being worse) and they have stuck to it. The world changed to be more in alignment with their price honesty; they didn't cave to showing their prices unfairly in an effort to be more "competitive" or "transparent".
> they took a principled stand to not show their prices in place where it would LOOK worse (without being worse)
I bet they weren't too unhappy about not paying an agent/referral fee to these "price comparison sites" (that are really often travel agents themselves, or are at least getting a commission from those or the airline directly).
For related reasons, Easyjet or Ryanair (I forgot which one) was not available for booking through the regular GDSes for the longest time, which made them unavailable for booking through traditional travel agents not directly integrating with their proprietary inventory system. I bet that was as much about not wanting to pay the incumbents' fees as much as it was about being "modern API forward".
Every commodity service like flights needs to be available through a standard API. We need to maximize the impact of market forces, via price discovery and then competition, for the benefit of passengers.
"principled", in this context, meaning "they have rules that they have abided by", rather than "a set of rules that are morally just or otherwise generally appreciable for their merits".
Not saying SW wasn't benefiting from the arrangement, or that they weren't playing coy for selfish reasons. Just saying that they had rules and stuck to them, rather than acquiescing to consumer forces as OP suggested.
Google flights has had the no checked bags allowed icon for years. And still shows it, I was originally afraid the government decided every ticket price has to include a checked bag, as that what your comment sounded like.
>I don't know how you would have come to that conclusion, after reading the article? It says pretty plainly that the new government regulations, which force airlines to show all "additional" charges alongside the ticket price, means that Southwest's bundled price will now SHOW as cheaper, rather than showing as a larger base price (but less without the added additional 'baggage check' fees, or whatever) than other airlines.
You said this. I said that's how Google Flights has been all along. So the full verbose question would be "What changed that made Southwest decide to allow their flights to appear on Google flights?"
It doesn't look to be simply 'government regulations'.
>It doesn't look to be simply 'government regulations'.
As evidenced by what? Your own summary makes it seem as if the only changed factor was the government regulations, so why wouldn't that be the "what changed"?
But to be more charitable: if you would like to know what - exactly - changed, I would suggest googling it? I'm honestly not trying to be snarky; what possible information could I have that you couldn't get easier by googling it? The thing you are asking about is a point of fact. The law is written text, and the changes are clearly defined. In my experience, whenever I don't understand the finer effects of a new law, I've found that there are a ton of nuances and complications and party interests that make the outcome more understandable to me. But I have never, in my life, had those nuances and complications made more clear or obviously true by way of a response from some forum commenter. It has ALWAYS been by seeking out the information, myself, from direct sources. So that's my suggestion to you, if you're earnestly asking.
But, either way, this is about all I have to say on the subject. Carry on as you will, and have a good one!
As someone who's often flown southwest exactly for that reason, now I'm a little worried the "secret is out..." though they've had enough issues over the last few years that I should probably be happy they'll just get more business generally.
It certainly appears as a principled stance now, but they opted out of OTAs back when any ticket on any airline got you two checked bags.
They didn't want to be easily compared back then on a level playing field. So it's a bit surprising that they want to be easily compared now, but the industry is also different.
Most likely if there was a principle, it was that they didn't want to pay Sabre to be in it, especially since Sabre was part of American Airlines until 2000.
Understood, but trusting Google to do something (in perpetuity) that it is not legally obligated to do is a hard sell to shareholders wondering why you would let your prices be misrepresented (in relation to other airline tickets) in that way.
The UI displaying the SW price for two checked bags next to the Delta price for zero checked bags is the issue. it's like comparing "the cheapest Mac laptop vs the cheapest windows laptop" vs "the cheapest Mac laptop vs equivalently spec'd windows laptop", and not trusting consumers or the price comparison UI to know the difference.
I certainly appreciate the effort as valiant, but the commenter responded to a generalized summary of the issue with anecdotal tunnel-vision about their pet issue, completely ignoring the context (an entire US law was passed - no small feat - to fix an issue ne is insisting doesn't actually exist) and the other types of issues that contribute to the misrepresentation of prices (checked bags aren't the only 'hidden fee').
In response to "you can see how THIS is a misrepresentation, right?" they said "actually, I've never had that problem, so..."
At some point, you have to recognize who and what you are dealing with and cut bait. But, hey, YMMV! Godspeed, if you're willing, I suppose!
If I look up a price for Delta compared against a price for Southwest and the Delta price is cheaper, that is a "representation".
If I go to Delta to buy the ticket, but cannot actually purchase the ticket for the price quoted (which was the problem), then there has been a misrepresentation of the actual cost of a Delta ticket.
Compounding that, if the actual price I pay for a Delta ticket is more than the comparison price for a Southwest ticket that would have allowed me to get the same fare, then the comparison is a misrepresentation. The comparison is no longer apples to apples. That's not a problem with Southwest having an issue with pricing model, that's a problem with the comparison sites not being forced to show comparisons between like products. That comparison, between unlike products, is a misrepresentation, if a reasonable person could believe that they were looking at a comparison of like products.
I'm not going to belabor the point further; the law was changed for exactly this type of nonsense. It's a misrepresentation.
>If I go to Delta to buy the ticket, but cannot actually purchase the ticket for the price quoted (which was the problem), then there has been a misrepresentation of the actual cost of a Delta ticket.
The price I see on Google flights has always been the price I pay on Delta.com
If I pick 2 checked bags on Google flights, then Google flights shows me the price for 2 checked bags with Delta.
I'm aware of plenty of airlines who are not transparent with their fees and are often advertised as much cheaper than some of my preferred airlines.
I don't trust the price I'm quoted until I get to checkout, but if I don't even SEE them in my list of flights to compare, they're not likely to be a consideration.
A lot of flight aggregators also support filtering in/out airlines and I often do this with those who are sneaky about their fees.
Very interested in this answer! I'd really like to see it on the website for any AI I'm considering. It's an entirely different proposition as to whether you're getting a utility or a service.
I'm building a note-taking app, so I hope you don't mind, but I was wondering if you might describe how you "search" your notes while using a device's file system search? For desktop, I might use a tool like grep to do that, but that's pretty developer-y, so if you're doing something more user-friendly, that's interesting to me. What is more interesting to me, though, is what you're using on mobile to do this? I've never, personally, used my mobile's file system search to discover text in notes. But I'm on Android, so there's not really only one 'file system' with a search interface.
My thought here is it that the app is going to be saving simple text files either plaintext or richtext (markdown/html), so it should be able to provide this for you, but I haven't even considered that as a feature so I would want to test it to see if there were any rough edges to polish. Any suggestions you have would be appreciated!
What I really mean is that I can use Spotlight on macOS, or Explorer on Windows. Since a lot of notetaking systems are cloud-based, I need to specifically open the notetaking app to search them. I can't search everything at once.
Yeah, that makes sense. I hate Window's file explorer search, but I still end up using it if I'm just looking for a filename, so I definitely understand that as the de-facto standard on that platform. I'm not as familiar with MacOS in general, and especially not spotlight, but it does appear to be a lot more useful.
But yeah, I think storing the files in the device's file system should address this concern. I appreciate you circling back to fill me in, though!
You're very close to hitting the main point that people miss: Posting on the internet is a global audience and that means writing with a global audience in mind.
It's a thousand times more taxing than a local audience because you lose all colloquialisms and points of common reference. It's more taxing than even writing for a newspaper because even in the worst case of national coverage, it's rare that an article author would have to consider the global perspective (though still required for certain types of news).
This whole article is just the author chafing at WANTING to use social media like ne has a local audience, while being FORCED to use social media with a global audience in mind. I very much empathize, in the same way I empathize with product manual writers or software documentation authors. Having to come up with every way some dickhead is going to misunderstand you is a massive undertaking. And THEN you have to come up with all the ways that some dickhead will TRY to misunderstand you. To guard against all of them is impossible, so you just have to shore up as many sides as you can and take the criticism as it comes. That is what it means to write for a global audience, and its exhausting.
So I don't blame anyone at all for saying "this isn't my job, fuck this."
Personally, I just write how I want to write and let the chips fall where they may. I don't begrudge anyone for just not writing at all, and leaving all the chips alone. But I also don't find their intention to do so particularly worth description; especially not in long form. It's not like its a binary choice. When you have the spoons to troll any troll that comes at you, and engage earnestly with anyone who is trying to engage with you - no matter how misguided - then have at it! Make your posts and enjoy or muddle through as applies. And on days when you don't want to deal with it? Just shut the fuck up. Don't say anything. Don't reply to people. Don't engage at all.
Don't know of anything like this, but this is a really good idea! It would be sweet to have a scene and renderer with well-known properties (which could be adjusted to account for style; realistic/toon/dynamic lighting/baked lighting, etc) which could be dropped in to a webpage so that users could mess with it. That way, developers could independently include it and write their own ways of injecting the assets.
The end result being a web widget that is a 3D environment with whatever the developer wants to put in it (with some defaults like "sunny outside", "sun room", "basement", "cave", etc), and drag-and-drop asset selection for users to view the showcased assets in the scene. Could even double as a code-guide, based on your idea of including functioning TV and Radio assets (an example of how to include this functionality into the assets). Overall, just a really great idea!
I've had my eye on this for a couple of months now because you guys are doing exactly what I'm doing when it comes to modular asset/utility development: putting it in the public domain, where it belongs.
I'm all for making money on specialization or convenience, but I really can't find it in myself to build a perfectly useful something and then only use it for myself unless someone else can pay for it. As long as it's fully modular, I just have to give it away for free. Some things - no matter how much work they took to make - are just not worth paying for. Or, at the very least, I would never pay for them. So rather than just keep everything to myself so I can use it the one time, I can't see any reason not to just make it entirely available to the public.
And, good god, I would be so embarrassed to see my name in the credits of something with a label like "provided image formatter", or something. So attribution is something that I really couldn't care less about. It's always a nice gesture, but some things just aren't worth attributing.
All of which is to say: I love your interest in releasing these things to the public domain, and I'm very eager to join you! I've worked in games since before the original THQ went under, and have been using Unreal for the last 6 years or so. I'd be happy to get into whatever process you guys are using, and provide assets to whatever specifications you enforce. I find the most important thing about assets is that they be uniform (so large-scale changes can all happen in the same way, per asset). So I'm happy to conform, just so I can make assets that will act well in-editor.
Unfortunately, I'm mired in some side-project dev work, and won't be able to work on games, or game assets, probably for the rest of the year. So I've got to put off helping until I can clear my plate some. But I have bookmarked you guys, and will follow up to see if you have any interest in additional help with this kind of work, as soon as I can!
Aside from all that, thanks again for providing this. It really is a useful and altruistic endeavor!
I didn't realize it reset for every word, so I was worried I was done on 8 words, but by getting that one at the wire, I was able to limp to 17.
At least for today's words, it was a reasonable difficulty ramp, and a pretty easy experience! If I had one note it's that clicking the text of a letter doesn't remove that letter from the word (while clicking the background of a letter DOES remove it).
Anyway, thanks for making/publishing this!
reply