Didn't it come out that their cameras were uploading everything to the cloud even though they swore it didn't? I feel like I remember being very disappointed with Anker for something...
They own Eufy which sells cameras with main feature being “no subscription needed”, that are very unreliable and full of ads (which isn’t being advertised as much as lack of subscription). They do also go big on labelling a lot of simple features as AI where in reality it’s something as simple as “detect a person in a photo”.
I have Eufy cameras and it’s complete garbage, sadly competition is also mostly garbage.
Bold unsustainable claims at st the core of their business, it’s not just thumbnails.
I found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_rAXF_btvE to be more balanced than the LTT video, but I think it mostly depends on your expectations of the cameras. The videos themselves are stored locally, not in the cloud. But if you have thumbnails turned on in the notifications, then the thumbnails have to be stored somewhere temporarily (I think this is an Apple/Google requirement), and they're being stored on a cloud server rather than in your home network (which would require opening up a port).
The only way I can read that is 'setting a cap does nothing' but reading that tells me that it only turns on email notifications. Not any better really. It's simply not a cap. It's an alarm.
Agreed. I don't agree with the underlying design decisions either, but you literally set a "Budget Alert" on Google Cloud. It's designed to be an alarm, not a cap. I was just trying to point that out
I am fairly sure that this is antipattern on purpose. If you ask a thousand people on the street what a budget means - they will coalesce on - the money I am willing to spend on something.
The fact that google redefine what budget means and put a warning doesn't make it ok.
Even if US clouds will make more money per capita in the US it has more total income and political advantage from the other 95% of people. US law will be as pro-consumer as Delaware law. (And it will be as restricted to the jurisdiction that decides it as IP law.)
No, I think Google should provide easy tools to actually cap spending, instead of recommending you set quota limits on your APIs.
The article, and the comment I was replying to, make it seem like an error in the Google Budget system. I'm simply trying to say this system is working as designed and documented.
I'm under the impression OAI wrote Letters of Intent, and are not actually on the hook for the RAM they requested.
The others...they did not. Memory makers won't be holding the bag because Apple/Google/Samsung are contractually obligated to purchase, after the panic OAI caused.
Not really. They realised they acted too soon. Give them some time until the market “consolidates” and they will change again their policy. Why would they want someone else to develop competing clients?
This gives the ability to use the excuse "I didn't know how to use the machine, I thought I used it correctly, nobody ever trained me on this", where as just walking out does not
(Not a lawyer, I'd imagine you know better here than I do)
IANAL but from what I understand, failure to enforce your IP in situations like this is often legally interpreted as a forfeit of your IP, and creates much more friction if you ever need to enforce it down the line
Sure, but giving them a generous IP license isn't considered a forfeit of your IP.
Blizzard actually went a step beyond and asked for your forfeit of any IP that you make with their tools. Not that any of those tools was used for Turtle WoW.
You prefer outdated-by-atleast-a-year data instead of the freshly scraped and ranked Google Search results?
GPT 5 was publicly released in August last year. That data has to be atleast a year old, right?
If I'm comparing Macbook Neo to a Chromebook, it's impossible for the Neo to show up in the training data, and has to use RAG
(This is assuming the data is atleast a year old. Seems like OAI isn't doing fresh runs for 5.1, 5.2, etc. but I'm unsure if that's been officially disclosed)
Not everything good or necessary was released in the past two years.
As an example interaction, recently I sent ChatGPT a picture of my soldering station and say I'm having trouble with it being slow to melt and it says "well these are your upgrade options but really all you need is a chunkier tip with more thermal mass, he's a link to a tip set you could try" but then the link is dead and I'm able to google my own similar set and just buy it (it worked great).
Another one was wanting a U-shaped bracket to mount a riser on my desk, and the only ones I could find at the building supply store are L-shaped. I asked Chat about this and it said it's just too niche of an item to be mass produced but suggested I buy from someone doing semi-custom fabrication on etsy. Sure enough... another dead link, but I google it and find the store, and order.
Two cases where I didn't really know what I actually wanted/needed, and Chat successfully filled the gap with information I was able to independently verify afterward, but also Chat missed out on the opportunity to get a referral fee out of my eventual spend.
You can have water protection and easily replaceable battery.
Still, I'm really curious about how many people take advantage of those standards and need IP67 (30min at 1m depth) as opposed to a quick splash or rain on it, or how many buy the artificial tradeoff of water resistance over easily replaceable battery because this is all that's offered.
Realistically, what did you want to happen? The cop to check the computer logs and see who changed your hours? Was it even someone in the store, or from corporate? Jurisdiction can get messy...
Proving someone intentionally changed your hours as opposed to a mistake or software bug is not the police's job. It quite literally is a civil crime and belongs in civil court, not criminal. I don't even think most police are trained in civil laws. (Atleast, not in my state?)
Catching someone who takes money out of a cash register is their job. That's textbook theft, a criminal activity.
I hate cops as much as the next guy, possibly more, but that just doesn't seem like their area
FWIW, the government is still (supposedly) working to resolve your issue...your tax dollars are still at work. Judge, Public Defender, blah blah blah....It's just not the job of a first responder
I'd vastly prefer the world where the untrained police actually stop getting involved in matters that they have no purpose being involved in, but to each their own I guess
reply