They imported dirt from Australia to Florida, grew grass on it, then shipped the grass to New York to be put into the stadium. Absolutely incredible.
I have to wonder if there might have been a better way to accomplish the same outcome though. Surely New York landscape suppliers could mix any desired dirt mix, and the grass could be grown in greenhouses? Wish I knew more about the decisions behind the Rube Goldberg grass.
>The White House kept close tabs on some of The Wall Street Journal’s interviews with Democratic lawmakers. After the offices of several Democrats shared with the White House either a recording of an interview or details about what was asked, some of those lawmakers spoke to the Journal a second time and once again emphasized Biden’s strengths.
A great deal of the money trickles down from the Olympics/IOC (WADA).
Individual sporting bodies are also under a great deal of pressure to comply with WADA standards, since there is a very real threat of being kicked out of the Olympics for insufficiently draconian enforcement (a perennial story with Weightlifting / IWF). So in many cases the athletes themselves pay for it via their dues to their sporting body.
I like the idea.
Workflows are going to be the make or break aspect of the product. It can’t be a thing that leads to distractions or additional work. I’ve had coworkers who just love to talk, and I hate it when I’m trying to get something done.
As an example, maybe requiring the talk button to be held down might naturally limit conversations to a few minutes. (Just an idea, maybe it doesn’t)
A way to sync voice with screen recordings would be killer for product development or software testing. A quick “hey, this button doesn’t work when I do this” would be so much faster than making a screen recording and attaching it to a new bug report.
Love the insight. You are correct, the "workflow" is the essence. I call this the protocol, and I've spent thousands of hours on this alone.
I have different approaches on screen + commz combo that uphold flowy's product principles of keeping it lightweight, and augmenting human conversation. Your idea around this is really interesting; I agree that this is a "killer" feature if done right.
Our bet: flowy is what loom users have been reaching for, but haven't been given.
This genre of research is disturbing to me. Researchers found accounts spreading ideas they didn’t like, tracked down their real world identities, and then recommended ways of silencing them. Please consider the implications of this activity, especially (inevitably) when it’s used to target communities we’re a part of.
That seems to deny even the existence of truth and falsehood. There's only opinion, "ideas they didn't like", and no chance that those ideas might actually be wrong.
There's also kind of an odd contradiction. This is an idea you don't like, and suggesting it should be stopped.
This is not about stopping "ideas I don't like," it's about stopping "This shit is made up, and it's intended to be damaging." I do not understand why so many people cannot or refuse to see the difference.
It’s bizarre isn’t it. We live in a world where people are slinging lies about the place, deliberately, for monetary or political gain.
And yet a lot of contributors here see no difference between that and factual information or honest reportage. It’s distressing that so many people seem to swim in this mire of relativity, and see calls for truthfulness and adherence to reality as some sort of sin, an admission of bias and a desire to suppress the other side.
It's not surprising. Many of the truths that have been slung around in recent times have turned out to be noble lies or outright falsehoods, manipulating opinion for monetary or political gain.
The problem is not so much in the research itself, but that it is presented and reported unaware or indifferent to those events.
I can't imagine Apple would make a deal that would allow a Third Party company to use Apple users' data for training. I would bet they'll either put it on-device, arrange the terms so that OpenAI cannot train on user data, or a mixture of both.
They almost assuredly have and will continue to. But it may not be ready fast enough.
Putting an AI assistant in every Apple product (it would have to be ecosystem wide) is nowhere near the same use case as dropping a model like llama on the web and saying it’s for research only.
Apple has successfully leaned on other company’s services for core features (Google maps) and even then it took years and years to create a reasonably compelling first party, privacy preserving alternative.
The Vision Pro is the company’s most risky bet in some time releasing a product that is not quite there. Reporting is there was great rancor over whether to continue to wait.
The company is exceedingly conservative about major changes to how its consumer-facing products behave and releasing anything new that isn’t ready.
This is true inclusive of the VP (which I think was well baked), AirPower (which clearly was not) the original iCloud and a handful of other stand out miss-calculations and failures.
A deal with OpenAI provides leading edge expectations of today’s consumers for AI assist. So, they won’t lose ground while Apple works quietly in the background.
Instead the company can watch behavior, develop their idea for how it aught to be and build in the background on their own timeline.
It's a good approach given the company was caught as flat footed as everyone else.
That is very likely a longer term goal for Apple, but they want something ready to go this year and not to have a Google Gemini type half-baked launch.
They've kept this company propped up with billions in data-center expenses, fed it pipelines galore of data, and now johnny-come-lately shows up & reaps all the same reward. While not firehosing all their data back in.
Zero loyalty, zero benefit for Microsoft if this alliance they've spent out the ass for again and again starts partnering up with the direct competitor, who unlike them will retain all the data. But that's OpenAI!
Any company so brazenly willing to reneg on their not-for-profit mission, willing to completely two-facedly change themselves at a whim to chase profit: that should have been a sign. You should have known. Should have seen this coming.
I have to wonder if there might have been a better way to accomplish the same outcome though. Surely New York landscape suppliers could mix any desired dirt mix, and the grass could be grown in greenhouses? Wish I knew more about the decisions behind the Rube Goldberg grass.
reply