It's almost exact same thing as purchasing an insurance.
If the management folks have personal health insurance, surely they must understand the concept and the need. And this is a much better deal because unlike actual insurance this is more like "invest once, enjoy forever" type of thing. And multi-stage boot chain, recovery partition and staged rollouts are not some rocket science that needs some serious expertise.
Yet, here we go. Humans are not really rational actors after all, and collective humans are even less so.
Not to diminish the atrocity of what happened to Aaron, but is this a highly abnormal case of prosecutor overzeal or is it common for people to be charged and held liable for downloading and/or consuming (without distribution) of copyrighted materials (in any form) without obtaining a license?
Asking because I genuinely don't know. I believe all I've ever read about persecution of "commonplace" copyright violations was either about distributors or tied to bidirectional nature of peer-to-peer exchange (torrents typically upload to others even as you download = redistribution).
I liked it - particularly the volume and brightness controls, and for convenient hotkey access in apps that I didn't use too often to memorize. But it was extremely badly implemented and then basically abandoned. At the very least, it should've never replaced function keys.
Touchbar is very fun to use, that alone makes it a great feature (thanks to mountains of work done to get amazing integration across system and many apps)
It's sad to see all that work going to bin.
Did you know that you can get touchbar on ipad that you connect as a second monitor? Excellent way to keep it alive, except, oh, it does not work, unless you drag the window to the ipad first... I mean... Somebody went and designed it to work like that, on purpose...
From the security perspective, having some UI that cannot be controlled by apps (a led, a touchbar, whatever) is very important for signalling app privilege levels. oh well
My understanding is that the post is essentially a complaint about deceptive marketing.
iPads are marketed as capable of "doing all the things you love", how it's "so versatile it's up to any task" and so on - leading to perception that it's like a computer, except in a different form factor. While, in reality, of course it's not.
Personally, I never found any subjectively meaningful use case for iPads except for portable media consumption (aka watching movies on the Porcelain Throne, and even then it's not a great option as it lacks multi-user support). Every time Apple announces a new one, I have this feeling of cognitive dissonance between what the device actually is and how it's marketed.
(I'm sure there are lots of good use cases for iPad - just nothing I personally need or care about. Aka "I'm not in the target market")
Apple is marketing to everyone and not just the HN crowd. For many people their phone is their only computing device and for them an iPad is likely a big upgrade. When I have to proof photos or do a bunch of office type work, an iPad has become my goto device. When I'm programming, not so much. But I don't think that's a big secret to this crowd.
I agree overall, but I don't think it's a secret to anyone, except, possibly, for people new to iPads, who haven't researched about what it really is.
YMMV, but I don't find this situation funny or deserving a sarcastic remark. What happened is that a person had seen an ad for a device with very good hardware specs that they cannot use because it doesn't work for them software- and policy-wise, and they're unhappy about it. I can understand if that person would make fun of their unhappiness (a perfectly valid way to handle the discomfort), but I wouldn't make fun of them as a bystander.
I think it's perfectly natural and expected to voice discontent if you saw an ad but the product wasn't a good fit for you and ad failed to disclose it (for obvious reasons, but still creating a conflict of interest). Especially because Apple is marketing to everyone, including software developers.
Are you telling me people use computers for different reasons?
No I won’t believe it. My specific workflow is all that is important and if that doesn’t fit to every form factor of device out there, then the manufacturer of that device is a fraud who is deliberately trying to spite me.
> then the manufacturer of that device is a fraud who is deliberately trying to spite me
That's a weird conclusion, even for a sarcastic remark.
Is it a fraud - is the marketing deceptive? Possibly, yes, I personally believe it can be said so. I think it could be the case because it fails to mention the nuance that iPads aren't a good device for certain tasks. If an ad says "for everyone" without any asterisks and small print to it, it's valid to complain that this is not true. It could be the norm, but it doesn't change the fact that there's a gap that may affect uninformed person's decision making towards purchasing the device that is not a good fit for them. I mean, anecdotally that's what happened to the author after all.
Is it a deliberate fraud, though? I haven't been in a room when that ad was discussed, so I cannot possibly tell. I'm not versed in marketing, but I believe I've heard that it's quite a common practice to not include any negativity (aka "when or why you wouldn't want our product?") from marketing materials, for the money doesn't smell. I have respect to the people and companies that do so, for I perceive it as a signal they respect me (aka not wasting my time researching). But whenever it was actually discussed and dismissed ("Should we mention if developers should rather get a Mac? Nah, we want them to buy an iPad too, even if it's useless to them!") or if the idea haven't even been mentioned (e.g. if it's simply not a thing in Apple culture) is unknown to me.
Are they trying to spite anyone? I don't have any evidence that suggests so, so I find it highly unlikely. While Apple has different system of beliefs and values, drastically different from some freedom-loving software crowds, I don't think I've seen signs of any significant deliberate hatred towards those who don't share their values, or willingness to make their lives worse somehow. There could've been some less than great attitudes (but my memory fails me here, I only have a vague idea that I might've possibly heard or read something that didn't resonate well with me), but I don't recall anything seriously hateful.
All this said, I would love for us all have more discussion about ethics in marketing. Honest, open, and ideally without any sarcastic remarks (for they rarely help and frequently discourage civilized discussion).
I'm sorry, I must be exceptionally stupid (or haven't seriously worked in this particular problem domain and thus lacking awareness), but I still can't figure out the use cases from this feature list.
What sort of thing should I be working on, to think "oh, maybe I want this DuckDB thing here to do this for me?"
I guess I don't really get the "that you want to learn something about" bit.
I’m not the person you asked, but here are some random, assorted examples of “structured data you want to learn something about”:
- data you’ve pulled from an API, such as stock history or weather data,
- banking records you want to analyze for patterns, trends, unauthorized transactions, etc
- your personal fitness data, such as workouts, distance, pace, etc
- your personal sleep patterns (data retrieved from a sleep tracking device),
- data you’ve pulled from an enterprise database at work — could be financial data, transactions, inventory, transit times, or anything else stored there that you might need to pull and analyze.
Here’s a personal example: I recently downloaded a publicly available dataset that came in the form of a 30 MB csv file. But instead of using commas to separate fields, it used the pipe character (‘|’). I used DuckDB to quickly read the data from the file. I could have actually queried the file directly using DuckDB SQL, but in my case I saved it to a local DuckDB database and queried it from there.
My dumb guy heuristic for DuckDB vs SQLite is something like:
- Am I doing data analysis?
- Is it read-heavy, write-light, using complex queries over large datasets?
- Is the dataset large (several GB to terabytes or more)?
- Do I want to use parquet/csv/json data without transformation steps?
- Do I need to distribute the workload across multiple cores?
If any of those are a yes, I might want DuckDB
- Do I need to write data frequently?
- Are ACID transactions important?
- Do I need concurrent writers?
- Are my data sets tiny?
- Are my queries super simple?
If most of the first questions are no and some of these are yes, SQLite is the right call
Your comment was downvoted into oblivion, but it's a very valid point. There is a significant number of GNU/Linux users who value the freedoms granted by FLOSS licensing, so I believe Orion not being a FLOSS project is a valid argument against it - specifically in context of GNU/Linux (as a part of Free Software movement).
At least it certainly leaves me (personally) having second thoughts, even though I'm no purist and use proprietary software (but try prefer free software if I can).
agree, the model assumes a multitasking setup where you need some leftover ram for other tasks. You can squeeze in much larger models when running dedicated
It would be a lot nicer if it would not just give a binary flag "can/can't run" but what to expect.
Ideal scenario (YMMV): add more hardware parameters (like chipset, CPU, actual RAM type/timings - with presets for most common setups) and extra model settings (quantization and context size come to mind) then answer like this: "you have sufficient RAM to load the model, and you should expect performance around 10 tok/sec with 3s to the first token". Or maybe rather list all models you know about and provide performance for each. Inverse search ("what rig do I need to run this model with at least this performance") would be also very cool. May be nice have an ability to parse input of common system information tools (like Windows wmic/Get-ComputerInfo, macOS system_profiler or GNU/Linux dmidecode - not sure if all info is there, but just as an rough idea: give some commands to run, parse their output in search of specs)
Of course, this would be very non-trivial to implement and you'll probably have to dig a lot for anecdotal data on how various hardware performs (hmm... maybe a good task for agentic LLM?) but that would actually make this a serious tool that people can use and link to, rather than a toy.
If the discussion is about A, and, let's suppose, some P(A) is true, if P(B) is also true, but discussion never mentions B - what's the point of solely bringing the fact of truthfulness of P(B) into the picture?
Fair point. However, I didn’t get that impression at all - in my reading the preceding conversation didn’t seem to suggest anything about uniqueness or make any comparisons. Would you mind quoting the piece that made you think it’s suggested so, please?
If we don't trust the legislative and see them as malevolent entities with their own agendas unaligned with those of their constituents, then, yes, a checkbox opens a path for further abuse.
If we trust the legislative to have a modicum of common sense and don't try to invent a technical solution to a non-technical problem, then a warning "what you're going to see is not for the younger audiences" might be a reasonable compromise.
And it's a shame we live in a world where the former doesn't sound completely nuts.
If the management folks have personal health insurance, surely they must understand the concept and the need. And this is a much better deal because unlike actual insurance this is more like "invest once, enjoy forever" type of thing. And multi-stage boot chain, recovery partition and staged rollouts are not some rocket science that needs some serious expertise.
Yet, here we go. Humans are not really rational actors after all, and collective humans are even less so.
reply