I would not say cheap per say, but in the context of "where is the business success going to be" that's one of the reasons why Mistral focuses on providing tuned model on premises to their customers.
On mobile ? Not really. Their website is mobile cancer, and their app is barely better. I'm impressed at how bad it is, and it's not even about "pushing more ads" but "controlling what people see". That's also why they've removed r/all.
r/popular already existed before, and this is different, it's the same idea as facebook, instagram, twitter ... It's a curated feed not in an order or same weight feed. In other words, it's used or can and will be used to push whatever.
It was a not specified but clearly meant part of his question that it's asking in the context of "... that could be tied to decoupling".
Eg this has nothing to do and thus can't be hand-wavy blamed on for things like "On mobile its navigation is terrible, takes you into strange routes that might be technically faster but are hard to drive at or sometimes non-existent. Sometimes tries to be smart, makes everything worse. i.e. suggest a route that it says its 5 min faster and shows no traffic and you find out that there's no traffic because of a road closure further ahead. The UI when driving is not as good as the competition. I only use it because it has superior business listings with decent reviews and photos."
It's the same thing with Internet Explorer, they can get away with low quality and orders of magnitude prices increases and restrictions on the API because they can and they can because of the monopoly. Early decoupling could have allowed competition which might have had good data, more open or more fairly priced api, better UI and navigation since it could have made commercial sense to invest in these things.
It's fine + obligation to fix, and daily fine until fixed, and higher fine if you do it again.
I know that sounds like it comes from "it will never work", but that's how active directory, office file format, etc ... got opened, and in a case more similar to here that's how windows n and decoupling of media and internet component from windows internals happened.
The issue is, yes, it takes time.
Another issue, purely PR, is that yes the EU gets attacked repeatedly by people trying to match "respect the law of the market or leave" with "the EU tax US companies because they can't compete".
> It's fine + obligation to fix, and daily fine until fixed, and higher fine if you do it again.
The important proviso is that the penalties need to (on some non-geological timescale) get high enough that the offender is no longer capable of operating. That could mean the fines reach $500 billion, or it could mean the company is barred from operating in the EU, or it could mean people get arrested and assets are seized. But unless the penalties become crippling, it won't matter. It needs to reach a point where the downsides of noncompliance are actually greater than the benefits.
NIS2 allows for the arrest of managers in case of cybersecurity incidents resulting from negligence. I think it's a step in the right direction, but we'll have to see how it plays out.
Eh, on the other hand the EU has now effectively forced usb-c for devices after apple refused to play it clean for years and they still got people who complained (how dare the regulator be opiniated toward tech !).
The EU loves to play it the european way, and while on the surface it seems "oh that means regulations" in reality it's a "figure it out yourselves and please behave like adult, we don't want to deal with that" and we ask for some sort of regulatory association or whatever that we can refer to to talk to them all.
It's worked in a ton of industries including ones where we have no moat but somehow tech companies are always incapable to behave. At least the US ones, eg for the phone thing it ended up being Samsung who told the EU "hey I've been playing ball for years and Apple isn't , make them or I stop too".
> Eh, on the other hand the EU has now effectively forced usb-c for devices after apple refused to play it clean for years and they still got people who complained (how dare the regulator be opiniated toward tech !).
This is a tired talking point. Yes, they were considering enforcing the most common standard at the time if the industry didn't want to play along.
Unless you have evidence that they'd have prevented the industry from suggesting/agreeing on a better standard in that timeline, MicroUSB would have made the most sense at the time.
> Unless you have evidence that they'd have prevented the industry from suggesting/agreeing on a better standard in that timeline, MicroUSB would have made the most sense at the time.
If this were an actual issue, you'd easily be able to point out all the previous times similar laws have kept us stuck on outdated standards. For some reason that's never the line of argumentation, it's always just "it will never change". Some political systems are actually able to pass & update laws.
It's malicious compliance with the intent of having the users misunderstand what's happening (that you don't have to do that but do it on purpose, and instead blame the law protecting them).
And eh, it works for the cookie banner so why change the strategy ? The comment you're answering to prove it still works. As long as people can't be bothered to think and inform themselves for a second about it, they won't stop. Same with the purposefully annoying and unclear and user hostile 'gdpr popup' about third party consent.
I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying from Google POV that's the correct move given their intent, the issue then become people like parent.
Yes and no, it's true now but the EU fines are not just "you did that" but "you did that we're going to assume you're going to be better and if you do again next time it will really hurt". Which I think is a fair point of view.
You might still answer too little to late, but given that we're at the starting point to a massive sovereignty push here thanks to the current US admin being proved as a possibility rather than a novelty, I think this matters a lot.
Well no, the cookie banner is a well intentioned but flawed and poorly designed law. Any law that is that technically specific but relies on people without an understanding of how it works is doomed to repeat the same fate. The eu should have seen prop 65 and not sleepwalked back into it.
1. The EU works on intent of the law rather than specific wording and precedence.
2. The law is a very simple "if you want to do it, you have to make sure they know", intended to force information without creating excessive administrative / legal / tech burden, please inform me about what other way you would present it that would reach the goal without being subject to malicious compliance ?
I understand. I'm generally a proponent of the spirit of the law rather than the wording of the law, and I've argued that is how the EU works here in the past. I think GDPR is a much, much better attempt at solving the problem, and has made meaningful change in tech industries. The ePrivacy directive just added pseudo-mandatory popups to every company without a technical lawyer.
Why? The whole point of the GPDR was to prevent medical information being used for insurance and all sorts of purposes.
Then come the lists of what exceptions are approved. Your medical info is used for divorces (anything involving court cases, anything involving criminal law), the police has access to it, your mayor has access to it, tax departments have access to it (think you can not pay tax and pay for your kid's cancer treatment instead? In Europe, think again). Insurance (if you get treatment for getting hurt in traffic your car insurance goes up). Unemployment (if you get treated for anything drug-related ...). Hospitals and doctors can use your medical information without your permission (for billing, for other treatments, for deciding if you should be interned, ...). And so on and so forth.
Oh and there are even silent exceptions. You see, YOU can't sue anyone under the GPDR. You can only ask a specific "supervisory authority" (you can't even choose which one)
They are under control of the executive, and so it is in most cases the currently elected party that decides if your GPDR complaint does anything, NOT the courts. Not the police. Not the public prosecutor. None of that. And it's even closed on the back end: you don't agree with these "supervisory authority"'s actions? Doesn't matter if you're complainant or defendant. You can't sue them either. You can't get a judge on your case, only appointed politicians.
There are even organizations that the GPDR supposedly applies to that have their own supervisory authority. Interpol violated your rights? No worries, file your complaint here in this building. You know, the building with "Interpol" on it in big letters.
So really, we do not even know the full list of exceptions.
More generally, the GPDR was supposed to prevent further encroachment of all sorts of organizations on privacy, with a big focus on medical data. It has achieved the opposite of that. FOR NOW (and not in every country) the only way to get a private medical file is to only use private medical care. For now that is still possible.
It's like the DMA (Digital Markets Act). Prevents organizations from using control of the OS to implement policy. There's a few exceptions though. Google gets an exception. Apple gets an exception. Through specific deals made with these organizations and the EU commissioner of
Nobody seems to have thought to scream into the commissions face: "THEN WHAT'S THE POINT?".
Well, who made those deals? Thierry Breton. He currently serves as a remunerated member of Bank of America’s Global Advisory Council (who have huge investments in Alphabet and Apple).
Yeah, I get why you want to focus on the intent only and not on what practically happened. Theory and practice are very, very different and the EU is incredibly pro-business and uses their power to literally grant billionaires exceptions to laws. That's how Goldman Sachs got it's first communist president (Barosso, who saved Goldman Sachs as president of the EU commission). That's reality, but of course the intent is thoroughly disguised, and you don't want to talk about the difference.
Gdpr whole point was about insurance? Can you please diversify your news source and educate yourself? I didn't even bother to read your pamphlet of a comment after seeing such an obviously wrong first sentence
No it was about privacy. Specifically given as an example in the actual law, privacy of medical data FROM insurance companies. But of course privacy from everyone.
The goal was not even remotely achieved, and this was 100% on purpose.
Then again, the very same people complain about GDPR not being technically super specific.
At some point we have to accept the pattern. People with ideological objections against any limits at all will try to frame any regulation as stupid, regardless of what is in it.
I don't know where you live or where you heard that but it is not a lie that was told in france at least. If you want a "lie", it was how far in the future that was going to happen, but that's mostly because the deniers got control of the messaging for a long time.
And even that was even taking on the solution from c#'s daddy : Delphi IntraWeb suite, all the way back in Delphi 7 and after.
This whole concept died because of styling and that era of everyone having their pixel perfect psd turned into a html table or a flash applet and you couldn't reconcile both, but sometime out there you can still find an old IntraWeb business app and you realize they had the components, events and everything figured out long before it became cool again.
I always wish for some RAD tool to show up for modern web stack again, but I guess it moves too fast to be worth it, and nowadays front and backend are properly separated disciplines.
When I talk about my kid to friends I talk them about he did that awesome thing, I don't specifically insist on the 99 times before where he miserably failed. They're not hidden, and we all know they exists and on occasion laugh about a few particularly funny ones, but overall the idea is that they don't matter much in terms of development, what matters is that if he succeeded once from now on his percentage of success will keep improving.
I don't believe in all the LLm is AI is AGI dream, it's too easy to trigger failure case that show a lack of basic thinking no matter how good they do on these tests. But I also can recognize the insane things that are made possible by them.
PS: I believe llm true power comes from hive/ant behavior, that's why we're so amazed by goal and agentic and sub agent
PS2: it's rather easy to figure out when we're there : when they can /goal it into improving itself until it does strictly better than itself at those benchmark, they've essentially reached mini singularity.
It's very simple to start a business, and it's even simpler to hire people.
It is hard to fire employee, especially when the company is doing good, yes.
It is a bit slow and administratively annoying to start a business in some countries, yes, though in those you can usually start operating while starting AND there are workarounds which is why there isn't enough pressure to stop it (eg, the german "pre made company shell" market is how you actually do it instead of making your own).
reply