I think this is my main hesitation with picking up the Duo on the first release. I have no doubt the build quality is exceptional, but the chance that the apps I use are not well optimized for this new form factor is pretty high in the first year of its release.
I don't think they won't work, but I anticipate oddities to appear for a while, especially for older applications.
I’m not sure about this, we already support resizing on our app for a while now because of our iPad/mac catalyst version, so I fail to see how different it would be on the Duo.
I assume other apps will have have the same, since our team is super small compared to everyone else.
This is my feeling too. It looks great - I think I might pick one up. But I’m going to give apple a few years to iron out the bugs first. Version 3 of the duo will be a much better product than version 1.
Anthropic’s goal is not anything to do with AI, it is purely to generate more profit than any other company.
Securing/lobbying to regulate their competitors through doom talk, or promising that they will bankrupt every other company because AI will “do it all, better than everyone else” is purely for investment purpose.
As long as their incentive is monetary, it’s not unreasonable to believe this is just marketing.
Normally, businesses spend a lot of money saying "no, our products are 100% safe" and get very upset with people who say they are not.
You are literally looking at someone who resigned because the company is acting unsafely, where other people from the same company are responding to this by saying "we agree, this is all very unsafe", in a community where all the various competitors have signed public statements saying "this is unsafe", where people who have Nobel prizes are saying "this is unsafe", where the philosophical centre of mass in the current research community circles around MIRI and LessWrong where the founders made the book "if anyone builds it, everyone dies" because they are so very tired of having to explain that they mean literally, where one of the major independent research organisations is "Model Evaluation and Threat Research", and where the major model makers have been sued for harm already caused by their systems and in one case have been ordered by the US government to prevent people accessing their model because they thought it was too dangerous.
A normal business would be shut down by almost any of these things independently, let alone all of them together. This remains true regardless of whether or not the leaders are psychopathic enough to think this is a good marketing campaign or not.
If this doesn't convince you there's a risk, what on earth would convincing you even look like?
Am I the only one starting to get annoyed by Bun just due to all the surrounding drama? I was genuinely surprised this was an actual link about an update - my gut inclination opening that was Jarred probably decided to rewrite Bun to JavaScript to stay pure or something like that.
It's not high, as per the same article, drinking 2 of those a day would be fine right? The ones you've listed also are always the big cans (for most) which to be a fair comparison with commercial coffees would also be large jugs.
The comparison isn't versus Soda which are considered not caffeinated by most people but against regular coffees, commercial coffees specifically (as home-made energy drinks are relatively healthy, similar to home made coffees).
Now pull the average Starbucks coffee list, it's likely higher in average.
With Fable 5 that did a websearch, specific drinks do have a bit lower content than Energy drinks yes, but most have a higher content, and if we are talking about Redbulls, then virtually every Starbucks drink is higher:
1 Monster = "Big can" (16 oz)
Size-by-Size Comparison
~8–10 oz (Small / Short)
Starbucks Short Pike Place 180 mg ≈ 1.1 Monsters
Starbucks Short Blonde 180 mg ≈ 1.1 Monsters
Starbucks Short Latte/Cappuccino 75 mg ≈ 0.5 Monster
Dunkin’ Small Original 150 mg ≈ 0.9 Monster
McCafé Small Coffee 109 mg ≈ 0.7 Monster
Peet’s Small Brewed 150 mg ≈ 0.9 Monster
Monster (for scale) 160 mg = 1.0
=====
~12 oz (Tall / Medium-small)
Starbucks Tall Blonde 270 mg ≈ 1.7 Monsters
Starbucks Tall Pike Place 260 mg ≈ 1.6 Monsters
Starbucks Tall Cold Brew 155 mg ≈ 1.0 Monster
Starbucks Tall Americano 150 mg ≈ 0.9 Monster
Starbucks Tall Latte 75 mg ≈ 0.5 Monster
Dunkin’ Small–Med iced/coffee 150–210 ≈ 0.9–1.3
McCafé Medium Coffee 145 mg ≈ 0.9 Monster
Costa Medio coffee ~280 mg ≈ 1.75 Monsters
=====
~16 oz (Grande / Medium)
Starbucks Grande Blonde 360 mg ≈ 2.25 Monsters
Starbucks Grande Pike Place 310 mg ≈ 1.9 Monsters
Starbucks Grande Cold Brew 205 mg ≈ 1.3 Monsters
Starbucks Grande Nitro Cold Brew 280 mg ≈ 1.75 Monsters
I don't think they won't work, but I anticipate oddities to appear for a while, especially for older applications.
reply