Ah yes, and convincing friends/family/partners to use Signal instead of Whatsapp clearly what will convince them is that they need to setup, acquire, and use cryptocurrency to register or connect with me on the encrypted messaging service. "No thanks, I just use Whatsapp/iMessage. I heard they're actually e2e encrypted too, so what's the problem?"

Management then cared that their one chance would work. Today management just wants it to mostly work.

Incentives and goals are very different between the two. We could very much build even more incredible things today; and would argue that we actually do. Just only in the places that seem to matter enough to do that type of special effort for.

Unfortunately it simply is true. The "same car" in another country is made cheaper. There are a variety of ways to do it and often it's justified as better than the alternative. For instance in India the goal is getting people off of motorcycles as that is a huge cause of driving deaths. To do that they remove various airbag systems, auto braking systems, and etc. which are not required in India... but are required in America or the EU.

Even between the EU and America there are differences in regulation with the EU often getting the stronger regulation first.

This video is my source for all of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVI-vFq39-I

I've done my best to remember most of it.

I get it, but part of the reason they're on motorcycles is cars are too expensive for them. Would making it safer and costing $20-30k base like it does in America be more or less ethical?

I don't think there is a clear answer. Safer car means owners of the car survive more and more often: which is unequivocally great. Making it cheaper means there are more people in a safer vehicle than before which can reduce their likelihood of getting hurt/dying, but they're not as protected as they could be. This is, on the whole, also really good.

It just so happens car makers pick to make it cheaper. It's good for business and good for those who couldn't afford it before. It is bad for those who encounter the situations where additional protection would have saved them.

No one was, nor was implied to be, deceptive. They described it in their own words and the word they chose is clearly inaccurate or misused.

That's all.

They could have described it as "game-like design" or something else.

I'm sure models which replace characters in realtime will also become popular. I would imagine some company thinking it would be cool if the main character looked slightly more like whatever main audience it's being shown to and it's done on their playback devices (so, of course, it can be customized or turned off).

I find the idea fun, kinda like using snapchat filters on characters, but in practice I'm sure it'll be used to cut corners and prevent the actual creative vision from being shown which saddens me.

Look at the latest changes in iPhone hardware for security. Some are saying the iphone is unhackable now.

There are no reasons such improvements couldn't work for Windows and I am guessing this is their best idea for raising the floor of hardware protection they can assume is available.

I agree the push, which is quite disruptive, must be influenced by someone higher up. But I think its as simple as "Windows is insecure" is something they want to make untrue.

So, in order to make Windows more secure, they are leaving behind 40% of their userbase on an unsupported (i.e. vulnerable) version?

Yes, I don't see how else they'd make any difference or get close to their goal without waiting 10 years for the computers to be slowly replaced.

Yes, when these PCs inevitably get exploited, the media and the general public aren't going to distinguish the versions. It will only reinforce the stereotype that PCs are insecure, get a Mac instead.

I think the article's point is that many on Windows 10 would upgrade to 11 if they could. Their computers are simply not supported and to get around that requires some technical skills.

They almost wilfully neglected to state that users can buy extended support at $50 per seat.

That was recently waived for private EU users, and I’m half expecting them to expand it more broadly.

Feels like the next logical move to me: they need to build and grow the demand for their product and API.

What better than companies whose central purpose is putting their API to use creatively? Rather than just waiting and hoping every F500 can implement AI improvements that aren't cut during budget crunches.

...no one thinks it's weird for the supposedly most transformational digital technology ever invented to need manufactured demand?? None of us think it's strange that a startup currently vying for a half a trillion dollar valuation is looking to "pre-idea founders" to help them find PMF??

Would this have been viewed with skepticism if any other startup from like 5+ years ago selling an API did this? If so, then how is it not even worse when a startup that is supposed to be providing access to what is pushed as a technical marvel of a panacea or something does it?

Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...

I literally help companies implement AI systems. So I'm not denying there being any value...just...I don't understand how we can say with a straight face that they need to "build and grow demand for their product and API" while the same company was just reported on inking a $300B deal with Oracle for infra...like come on...the demand isn't there yet?!

Just because it's not independent and autonomous does not mean it could not be intelligent.

If existing humans minds could be stopped/started without damage, copied perfectly, and had their memory state modified at-will would that make us not intelligent?

The thesis is that "intelligence" and "independence/autonomy" are independent concepts. Deciding whether LLMs have independence/autonomy does not help us decide if they are intelligent.