That's just trying to promote a competitor. This is more or less what Fraunhofer did with the mp3 license, which resulted in bunch of new, and better formats.
A few years ago I was thinking about how one might do the same for Danish laws, but those are written by idiots (lawyers).
Rather than revising a law, a new one seems to be written using text like:
The word "is" replaces the word "was" in line 5 and 6 in "Law on X,Y,Z, paragraf 8, section 5". Or "section 9 in Law on Q,V,W is removed, in favour of the following text".
Why the hell you not just rewrite the old law and bump the revision? After just two revision it's basically impossible to read the actual law. I think that's on purpose.
Isn't it just a lawmakers' version of diff? :) You just can't conveniently apply it automatically to compile the resulting text.
>Why the hell you not just rewrite the old law and bump the revision?
Because it's aimed at lawyers and judges who have to be up-to-date with all changes and its easier for them to remember "section 123 was amended in 2026", than to recall a whole new revision and mentally compute the difference.
It's also why you often can see skipped items (e.g. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10). Because humans often think in terms of "<..> code, section 123", not "<..> code, revision 24, section 123, which was section 130 in revision 20", so when you remove a part, it's more efficient to leave an empty space and to not reuse it later.
It probably is, and they are just stuck in the past not wanting to adopt new tools. You have people in tech reading chancelogs, or follow something like the openbsd-cvs mailing list. It feels like it would be easier if you did have have to look up a law, the search for amendments, which may or may not exist.
> Yes they need to get email in space. It's easy way to send documents back and forth.
To me that's probably much more interesting. We assume they have all this fancy NASA tech, probably some special communication protocols, but nope, email is fine. Still not sure why they'd use Outlook, but I guess it's easier than retraining astronauts on Alpine or Mutt.
How long did the US military rely on mIRC... decades, maybe they still do?
If they have stock outlook they are doing normal networking and are connected to the normal internet over some deep-space antenna setup. So why not just use Debian and gmail in the browser if you want easy? The ISS uses Debian. I can't believe it's too hard to get astronauts to open Firefox
Gmail is not an Outlook replacement. Gsuite as a whole has more or less the required pieces, but there is no single google product that covers the feature set of Outlook + Exchange.
> The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code has been used. It has been tested. Lots of bugs have been found, and they’ve been fixed.
This quote is completely and totally irrelevant. Nobody is saying they should code a new Outlook. If they did code something, it would be significantly smaller in scope and rigorously tested like spacebound programs in the past were. "New space-engineering-grade code created with actual engineering practices" is absolutely going to be more reliable than "old bloated commercial shitware". But I guess software engineering is a lost art, so it can't be helped.
It's also going to take a hell of a lot longer and cost more than buying an Outlook license. If I was lead on that project, you'd have an uphill battle trying to convince me that spending $100k+ on an email solution unless you can point to specific, serious deficiencies in the existing off the shelf solutions.
Software Engineering is far from a lost art: part of the practice is intelligently making cost-benefit decisions.
The current solution is literally causing problems in space. Space-grade engineering is expensive, but having things go wrong on your already very expensive mission is even more expensive.
Sure, but people who didn't know better until this particular incident do not deserve the title "engineer". Being able to classify and manage risks before they happen is engineering 101.
That problem would be much less likely with a minimalist battle tested OSS solution whose maintainers and users have decidedly different priorities than those governing something like outlook or even thunderbird.
The higher the stakes the more valuable minimalism becomes.
Generally the whole thing needs to be flipped upside down. Extensions is the easy one, there's not reason a random website can list your installed extensions, zero.
For other capabilities, like BlueTooth API, rather than querying the browser, assume that the browser can do it and then have the browser inform the user that the site is attempting to use an unsupported API.
OpenAI have burned nearly 25 times what Uber did, it has more competitors, billions of dollars in obligations and no clear way to profitability.
The problem for OpenAI is that the cost of getting them where they are now has been to high and competitors can now establish themselves for much less money.
Oh, I read it as the number of subscribers would triple, but you're suggesting the price will?
That makes a little more sense, because the number of subscribers are so low that tripling won't really make much difference in terms of turning a profit.
Its simply not going to happen. People like Nadella call it 'tacit knowledge' - the reality is the work people do is much broader than what is producible by LLMs alone. Without the human, there is no work done. Unlike classic machinery, LLMs are not comparable in that you cant simply reduce labour input by X and be fine. Sure in the short term the consequences will not show up, but in the long term they will.
Altman and co. get down on their knees and pray that proposition is only transitory in the short run.
LLMs wont disappear, but they wont be large profit generators either. Especially not so whilst there is fierce competition and every dollar of profit is re-invested. The value of an asset is derived upon its potential cash return, net of reinvestment, taxes et al.
Altman is hoping to survive long enough to finance R&D to figure out how to encode the entirety of what humans do, to be able to come good on the asinine aspirations he has put forth that justify its valuation. But it will end in disaster.
You haven't put forward a compelling argument besides fluff.
This is so surface level and boring.
Most of you aren't really clued up on subject areas like Finance to talk about this stuff frankly. As long as a firm is beating its cost of capital, it will reinvest money to generate more growth. What does that mean? Oh. Hiring more people.
Tech-reviewers keep harping on the MacBook for not having a touch option, but I think it's mostly of check a box.
Something no one seems to address is that it makes no sense to have touch on the laptop screen, because you honestly don't use it much, at least in a professional setting. You'll always dock your laptop anyway, either for comfort, or legal compliance (or both). My 27" monitor doesn't have touch, that's what I use 99% of the time, the laptop screen is a small auxiliary screen on the side. Why I reach out and touch it? That's also why the touch bar made no sense, it was on a keyboard that I almost never use.
Because it would blur the lines between the iPad and MacBook to much. Right now it's two clearly distinct product lines, with separate use cases. Adding touch to the MacBook could hurt iPad sales (in the pro segment).
I also think Apple knows that their laptops doesn't need touch. It's a gimmick and adds nothing to the usability, but raises the cost.
There was an article somewhere a few days ago, where the author raised the question: Why buy tanks in a world of drone warfare. Something like that. I see this as much the same "problem". Drones can't really take or hold territory, they can only deny access to it. At some point you need people and armoured vehicles on the ground.
The US is facing the same issue in Iran. You can bomb all you like, but a bomber, like a drone, can't hold land. Iran can launch drones and missiles towards the Strait of Hormuz from the entire country, denying anyone access, but also without being able to hold it.
Because they went in without a plan, or even a goal really, the US administration denied itself, and everyone else, access to the strait. The military leadership probably knew this. If not they could have asked Ukraine if this was a sound idea, given their knowledge and experience with Iranian drone technology.
Short of using pass, what are some good alternatives? My main critic of 1Password has been the cost, but it is a very good password manager, and price seems to have gone down... Or at least the dollars has weakened enough that the price has come down for me.
Weird that their website isn't updated yet. My subscription renewed earlier this year and I noticed that the price had come down, but that's because the dollar has lost 15% of it's value since last year.
That is a pretty big price bump though, and I think it's going to cost them. It's certainly enough that I'll reconsider Bitwarden.
They sent an email a couple months ago stating prices were increasing as of Mar 27. The family plan went from $59.88 USD per year to $71.88 But it's still worth it IMO.
reply