Generally it's fair use if it's a legal copy and you have a legitimate reason such as backup/recovery or working around a bug and the models don't care.
If you stumble into vulnerability/cryptography territory sometimes they'll whine.
Surprisingly, no. I've been using Fable and Astra both to orchestrate decompilation of a relatively modern game (delivered via Steam) and they have no qualms about it.
Sadly not updating the OS is very bad from a security perspective. Though it's frustrating that Apple rarely provides any sort of "security fix only" updates, and to fix security issues you just have to install all the new things at once.
My experience has been that they do provide those updates, but they intentionally make it hard to notice compared to getting the major version updates that are available for the OS. I distinctly remember a new junior engineer out of college joining my team back in maybe 2022, seeing there were security updates, and then not noticing the button saying something like "more updates" to be able to get them without updating to the latest major version of MacOS.
More recently, at the end of August, by the dates on my screenshots on my work laptop (the only Apple device I use) I took screenshots because I was incredulous of the sheer audacity of the UI shown for updating from MacOS 15.7.7 to 15.7.9 along with, in the words of the update UI, "1 more" update. When I clicked the button to view all of the available updates, it showed three available updates, which were, in order, MacOS 26.6.2 (which was checked), MacOS 15.7.9 (which was unchecked), and Safari 26.6.1 (which was checked). They literally previewed the only update that was not checked despite not even sorting it at the top of the list of updates available to install. I have absolutely no clue what would have happened if I clicked the "Update now" button next to the prompt for 15.7.9 rather than the identically-styled-to-non-link-element text for viewing the full set of updates, but at absolute best it would have just done something entirely different than what I'd get from the default options when viewing the expanded list, and it seems far more likely that it would have just also done the default options of the expanded view and updated to a completely different version that it put next to the update button.
on MacOS they provide security fixes for two years for unsupported OSes (after that the only remaining security protection is Gatekeeper/Notarization). On iOS you generally get no security fixes unless the vulnerability is really bad
AFAIK Apple has no published policy. Their last several macOS releases have received 3 years of security fixes.
iOS now seems to get 5 years of security updates, but only for devices that can't upgrade to newer iOS versions - so iOS versions that don't strand any devices get cut off early. e.g. iOS 15 received 3 updates in 2026, but iOS 17 hasn't been updated since 2025.
I recently sold a nine year old iPad running iOS 17 that is still getting security updates (17.7.11 a few months ago). Even iOS 15 (released 2021) got a security update in May.
I believe if you have a much older iDevice that no longer supports the latest OS, they will keep releasing security updates for that device for a long time, which is good on them. But if you have a newer device, after awhile the only way to get security updates is a major version upgrade. You luck out if your device happens to be old enough not support to newer iOS versions.
I love horseback riding and do it all the time. I can't walk past an open field without wishing my horse Fawkes and I were cantering across it.
So when I heard about Jev, I was pretty excited. But as I learned more, I realized Jev can't ride horses, can't muck a stall, can't teach a flying lead change, and can't even reset a thrown shoe.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I can't figure out why this exciting new thing doesn't work for my personal interest. Its lack of horseback riding support is a dealbreaker for me.
For Home Assistant, the MCP can enable the LLM to make changes without using up excessive tokens.
For example, the only way to make a change to an HA automation via the API is to POST a whole new copy of the YAML, even if changing one things. The skill and HA MCP I use allows the LLM to use tools which make more precise changes without excessive context usage.
Certainly still works either way though. And of course your LLM instance could just roll its own tools to do the exact same thing.
For browsers that implement strict cookie partitioning, the privacy concern is moot. With this, the cookie jar that's used when chatgpt.com is a 3rd party site is completely separate for the jar used on the 1st party site. So your chatgpt.com account can't be linked to your ad views.
Since this has been standard ad tech for awhile, browsers have reacted to this to implement cookie partitioning for exactly these privacy reasons.
Modern adtech fingerprints your browser regardless of cookies, so they can still know who you are. The fingerprint consists of a combination of facts about your browser that together uniquely identify it (screen resolution, timezone, installed fonts and browser extensions, OS version, User agent, even GPU with some forms of canvas fingerprinting, etc.) ChatGPT uses fingerprinting too. Cookie isolation isn't relevant, only anti fingerprinting techniques are.
> Google simply regrets android being open source.
Could Google backtrack on this if they wanted? If they suddenly decided to stop releasing public code updates, what would they be violating? I can guess: Anti-trust maybe. probable at least contractual commitments Or is there some stronger forcing function?
Relatedly: I suspect LLMs are influencing baby names. If you ask Claude or ChatGPT for its favorite baby names, you'll get baby names that right now are skyrocketing in terms of popularity.
The output tokens are just responses to your inputed questions and their probability. So relatively few output tokens. No unstructured text back in the response.
I think the trouble is that Typesafe APIs don't fit into the normal OpenAI-style API that every other regular LLM provider users. You're not just providing unstructured text and getting unstructured text back. It would take a different request and response format than every other model on Open Router. Though you could shoe-horn it in some way, it'd be hacky.
But agreed it'd be very useful to see it deployed on other hubs, and it seems worth it to provide the bespoke API format. Perhaps Typesafe's API will end up becoming the standard for a new type of structured model, the way OpenAI's API did.
reply