I see this as a lower overhead replacement for MCP. Rather than managing a bunch of MCP's, use the directory structure to your advantage, leverage the OS's capability to execute
aka the entire point of the exercise. The innocuous components are there so that the Dept of Defense can claim that it's those minor items the press is objecting to, without having to defend the actual substantive policy change.
Swiping left or right on the screen is the special “please misinterpret my attempt to scroll as a ‘forward’ or ‘back’ command, eliciting a curse” gesture. I have searched for a way to disable this many times.
Not the OP but I'll take a stab: I see "waiting faster" as meaning roughly "check the status of" faster.
For example, you have lots of concurrent tasks, and they're waiting on slow external IO. Each task needs its IO to finish so you can make forward progress. At any given time, it's unlikely more than a couple of tasks can make forward progress, due to waiting on that IO. So most of the time, you end up checking on tasks that aren't ready to do anything, because the IO isn't done. So you're waiting on them to be ready.
Now, if you can do that "waiting" (really, checking if they're ready for work or not) on them faster, you can spend more of your machine time on whatever actual work _is_ ready to be done, rather than on checking which tasks are ready for work.
Threads make sense in the opposite scenario: when you have lots of work that _is_ ready, and you just need to chew through it as fast as possible. E.g. numbers to crunch, data to search through, etc.
I'd love if someone has a more illustrative metaphor to explain this, this is just how I think about it.
I'm very curious to know what kind of adoption Meta's AI features are getting. The idea of anyone wanting to talk to AI persona's in a similar way to how they talk to their friends is completely bizarre to me, but they seem to be pushing it quite hard
check out the chatGPT subreddit last weekend for the meltdowns from people who were routed away from gpt-4o to the "safety" version of the model when they tried to discuss controversial topics - they sound like somebody confiscated their best friend.
i think more people are treating an LLM like a friend than you might expect - i was certainly surprised.
The Sinclair statement is just bizarre. Kimmel is to pay restitution to Kirk's (millionaire) widow because of statements he made about the political reaction to his death?
Media and the public have been going soft on the Trump admin for extorting law firms, businesses, and institutions because "Ah, it's just money. Just a settlement. No big deal".
It's not about Kimmel or the money, it's about the next person not stepping out of line so they don't face the consequences.
I expected Kimmel to have somehow criticized Kirk, a dubious enough reason to pull the show. But this isn’t even that. Comments quoted in stories assert that the shooter was MAGA - maybe that’s somewhat controversial, but it’s ludicrous to suggest it’s offensive.
That paired with comments criticizing the Dear Leader were enough. This is a new low in corporate cowardice toward Trump bullying.
Terrible precedent aside, how could Disney think that capitulating here will result in anything other than more attempts to control their programming in the short term?
Why would a broadcaster want to pull a show and need an excuse to do so? Shows get cancelled all the time if the broadcaster decides that they're too expensive etc.
> We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it
Kimmel did not assert Mr. Robinson was anything he wasn't. Kimmel noted how some people are doing everything possible to distance themselves from Mr. Robinson.
Correct, you did. You omitted the quote. If you choose to add meaning, or put words in Mr. Kimmel's mouth, that is your decision.
In any case, if you think such a statement is objectionable, then you would conclude many statements made by the current president would prevent any network from putting him on air, correct?
Yeah, when the president starts a television network, gets a broadcast license from the FCC (under which he must meet “public interest” requirements), spins up a late night program, and then begins deliberately spreading misinformation to score political points, then yes, threaten to revoke his license.
How many examples are you looking for, and for what time period? I could probably list a few dozen examples scoped to just the last 24 hours. Looking further back this is a pretty well known example https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-t...
AFAIK all information anybody had at the time was that he grew up in a good gun-loving Republican family and he'd written some silly memes on the shell casings.
The discord chats and his relationship with a trans woman were AFAIK not revealed yet, or at least were so new that they maybe hadn't made it to Kimmel's writers room.
That kind of problem gets a demand of a retraction, not a firing.
Contrast that to a Fox News host calling for mass executions of homeless people the other day (and since that day there have been multiple mass killings of homeless people). That guy got off with a thin apology.
It's "Rules for thee but not for me," with these folks.
And it's not like it's a surprise either. As Sartre observed[0] decades ago:
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre
