Actually it says the desalinated water is too expensive even for farming, it’s only used for heavy industries, so it’s certainly not a solution for the domestic supply of 9 million people.
And don’t confuse moving the capital city with actually relocating Tehran. Tehran’s not going anywhere. What they’re proposing is building a new capital city, but it’ll be the rich and the political and religious elite who move there. The millions of poor and powerless living in Tehran will get left behind. Some will be able to migrate south, but many won’t.
Perhaps not, but you can bet that they were told the opposite when Zuckerberg was recruiting them. Indeed, ring fencing the lab does suggest some real attempt to do it.
I'd be wary about interpreting a simple trend of App Store / Google Play apps without other context. Both are walled gardens, with developer fees and review processes managed by gatekeepers with an incentive and an ability to artificially control the rate of new apps. I would ask: What is the trend of app store review waiting times? What is the trend of rejections? What is the trend of delistings?
If a US company operates in a different country as well, it has to abide by the laws of that country, or leave it. For example, Adobe's acquisition of Figma was blocked by the UK and EU regulators, despite them both being US companies headquartered in San Francisco. They could have chosen to leave the UK and EU markets entirely, in which case their merger would have been able to proceed, but they wouldn't have been able to sell anything to UK/EU citizens.
Apparently they didn't forget. Lionsgate did all the necessary work, then someone sent the "wrong file" to HBO Max, and it seems nobody checked it properly before uploading it!
Given the volume of material these streamers are handling, I expect QA is minimal. I remember when I was watching Frasier on Amazon Prime, a bunch of the episodes had been configured to play in the wrong aspect ratio. Clearly nobody had ever bothered to check them.
When I worked in the VOD industry we never almost never did a precheck of the files. The content provider (Lionsgate in this case) would upload the files that would then get ingested by the CMS system for normalization and transcoding. The most check the distributor did was add metadata marks for ad breaks and random checks for transcode quality.
I set up custom ingest workflows many cable companies around the world and they all worked the same. You just had to trust that the providers sent you good copies and get them to fix their shit if it was wrong. Most of the time it was bad metadata (episode description, ect).
Friends on Netflix one day years ago had the extended versions of the episodes. They fixed it quickly, but it's kind of a shame since it'd be nice if we had the choice to select which version we wanted to see.
I’ve seen movies on Prime where the audio was very badly out of sync. I thought it was my setup at first, but I was able to isolate it to particular titles. Like watching a bad dub from another language.
> Given the volume of material these streamers are handling, I expect QA is minimal
Yeah, I expect QA is minimal for these shows that are past their prime. Only fans will really watch them again, it's probably not worth it to spend the extra time to review every single episode. (But of course, fans will care! I'm just saying it's probably not worthwhile for HBO to check)
HBO Max was advertising this as a big new exciting release. They probably paid a bunch of money for exclusive streaming rights and expected to capture a new audience that missed the show the first time.
The core argument here, as far as I can discern it, seems to be: A trillion dollars has been spent scaling LLMs in an attempt to create AGI. Since scaling alone looks like it won't produce AGI, that money has been wasted.
This is a frankly bizarre argument. Firstly, it presupposes that _only_ way AI becomes useful is if turns into AGI. But that isn't true: Existing LLMs can do a variety of economically valuable tasks, such as coding, even when not being AGI. Perhaps the economic worth of non-AGI will never equal what it costs to build an operate it, but it seems way too early to make that judgement and declare any non-AGI AI as worthless.
Secondly, even if scaling alone won't reach AGI, that doesn't mean that you can reach AGI _without_ scaling. Even when new and better architectures are developed, it still seems likely that, between two models with an equivalent architecture, the one with more data and compute research will be more powerful. And waiting for better architectures before you try to scale means you will never start. 50 years from now, researchers will have much better architectures. Does that mean we should wait 50 years before trying to scale them? How about 100 years? At what point do you say, we're never going to discover anything better, so now we can try scaling?
IMO it is usually a mistake to integrate AI as a separate chat function in the UI. AI(s) be integrated into existing chat and collaboration features via @ tagging. E.g. in something like Figma or Google Docs, you should be able to add comments, tag @ai, and ask it for feedback or to make changes just as you would if you were collaborating with a human. Putting the AI inside its own private chat button often makes it feel like a Clippy-esque gimmick.
Solid insight - I actually tried implementing an AI chat into my app. It's just an internal app for my own productivity purposes with my eCommerce business, but I felt I had a credible use case for having it there. At the end of the day, the work required to get it to a spot where it was useful and not janky was just too much (even with the AI tooling provided by Vercel's AI SDK). And, even though I got it working, I never found a reason to use it that I didn't feel like could just be achieved more smoothly with some buttons and text inputs.
It also generally portrays almost everyone around him at Bletchley as some level of ignorant, stupid or maliciously obstructive, despite the fact that most of them were brilliant mathematicians and engineers whose contribution equalled his. But the real story of an incredible collaborative effort is sacrificed for a facile Hollywood narrative of a single, misunderstood genius single-handedly saving the day. It’s honestly one of the worst films ever made.
And don’t confuse moving the capital city with actually relocating Tehran. Tehran’s not going anywhere. What they’re proposing is building a new capital city, but it’ll be the rich and the political and religious elite who move there. The millions of poor and powerless living in Tehran will get left behind. Some will be able to migrate south, but many won’t.
reply