OpenAI GPU wont be idle for long because they have all other requests to serve. Over time there will be a certain % of idle GPUs, amortized across all hundreds of millions of requests they receive.
I agree with you a LLM is perfectly capable of explaining its actions.
However it cannot do so after the fact. If there's a reasoning trace it could extract a justification from it. But if there isn't, or if the reasoning trace makes no sense, then the LLM will just lie and make up reasons that sound about right.
> If you watch the sales on other laptops you can easily get similar specs for half of what framework is charging. I have a 5070TI laptop I purchased for around 1200$ after a rebate.
Just to be clear: You are comparing today's Framework regular prices to a laptop you bought months or years ago, on sale?
Welcome to 2026's reality, most new music is already AI-generated. I don't like it, but it is what it is. YT Music is already full of AI slop, those tools aren't changing that.
If anything it gives Google control of the entire production->sale->delivery process.
I'm honestly not seeing a downside for Google here, can you elaborate?
Most new music by what definition? I'm certain more stuff is being churned out by these automated tools than genuine human creativity, but that doesn't make it economically relevant if the only use it's seeing is random high school kids' YouTube channels. It's not seeing streams on services, it's not bringing in revenue once created.
I just keep reporting AI slop videos (incl music) on YT, and sometimes the videos or even entire channel vanish. I hope I'm contributing to this process to keep YT safe, but I'm just one guy, and they probably have a much bigger effort internally.
The downside for Google is, ultimately, the death of the company. Nobody wants AI slop, and go out of their way to actively avoid it and punish companies that promote it. Google already is running a huge risk by pushing Gemini into every service, and permanently burning customers and users with it.
Microsoft is already seeing the downside of trying to Copilot everything. Their software is now partly slop, shit randomly breaks, companies cancel Azure/Office subscriptions and move to on-prem, FOSS, etc. They've pumped their brakes quite a lot, but the damage may be too great to mitigate now.
If Google wants to lose money in the long run, then by all means, please continue.
The people in charge here don’t give a fuck about the long term.
Reap as much profits for yourself as you can before everything inevitably collapses - that’s the prevailing current trend.
Let the lizard brain take over and just feel good in the moment, why worry about the future.
Coca-Cola tried at least twice to market half-sugar Coke (C2 and Life). But instead of just doing half-sugar, they added aspartame and stevia respectively to compensate...
There are surprisingly few tools to work on file system images in the Linux world, they expect loopback mounting to always be available.
There are a few libraries to read ext4 but every time I've tried to use one it missed one feature that my specific image was using (mke2fs changes its defaults every couple years to rely on newer ext4 features).
> people just don't take any time to learn git, then get on a soapbox about it.
That is true. However those same people that struggled for years with git are able to pick up jj and be very productive with no issue whatsoever, in a matter of days. So either:
1. jj is a lot more intuitive out of the box
2. or jj makes learning it fun, so more people do it
Whichever it may be, hopefully git can improve by learning from it and we all win. Don't you agree?
3. After years of refusing to learn git and making excuses for their hate, the goobers finally buckle down and read the manual for a tool that coincidentally does stuff a little different from git. They leap at the opportunity to further blame git for their difficulties rather than themselves.
If there is a way git can be made to appease these people without making it horrible, then we should try to do it. But I still think these people would be better served by buckling down for a few hours to learn git as it was designed, because it is designed very well.
> The problem is that the UX with a browser extension is so much better.
It's better, but calling it so much better [that it's unreasonable to forgo the browser extension] is a bit silly to me.
1. Go to website login page
2. trigger the global shortcut that will invoke your password manager
3. Your password manager will appear with the correct entry usually preselected, if not type 3 letters of the site's name.
4. Press enter to perform the auto type sequence.
There, an entire class of exploits entirely avoided. No more injecting third party JS in all pages. No more keeping an listening socket in your password manager, ready to give away all your secrets.
The tradeoff? You now have to manually press ctrl+shift+space or whatever instead when you need to log in.
The tradeoff is that you need to know how to setup a global shortcut or even know it's even possible. I wish people would stop minimizing the knowledge they have as something everyone just knows.
How do you set up this shortcut? I'd prefer to get rid of extensions, if for no better reason than sometimes it switches to my work profile and I have to re-login
> Cellebrite sells their lower-level devices to Apple directly for things like data transfer at Apple Stores.
Please substantiate that claim. Why would Apple need mystical third party devices to transfer data? They've designed both the user devices and the software, and they're both capable of exchanging data, and I'm sure Apple can do even more once they put the devices in diagnostic mode. What am I missing? What is Cellebrite providing here?
Because it’s a pain in the arse to design, manufacture and build a specialist device just for use in your stores.
I’m sure Apple could do everything that box does and more. But why bother designing, building and manufacturing your own specialist device when someone else already sells a perfectly good tool that does the job.
Don’t forget this is for use in a retail store by people who will have been given 5mins training on how to use the device. You want something that just requires a person to plug two phones in and hit a big “go” button. And it needs to work 99% of the time with zero messing around.
They built specialized tools to update iOS through the cardboard box without opening it before it goes on sale. I’m sure they can build something with a big “go” button if it’s important.
Nobody is arguing whether or not Apple could build the box. Apple could do almost anything that another company does. "Why doesn't Apple build their own planes to ship iPhones". Well, obviously because it's way cheaper, faster, and rational to use the perfectly good existing planes/boxes/you-name-it.
> Nobody is arguing whether or not Apple could build the box.
People aren’t debating whether or not Apple could theoretically find a way to transfer data between the devices they make and sell. The question here is if there is any evidence for the assertion that Apple buys Cellebrite devices in lieu of making their own solution for transferring data between the devices that they make and sell.
That’s true, but it seems unlikely to me that they would partner with the company that helped the FBI unlock iPhones and is in general an adversary to Apple.
Admittedly a single request isn't a full load, but claiming that a request makes no difference vs idle is misguided, in my opinion.
reply