I don't think AirTag work that way. AirTag protocol is specifically designed so Apple or other parties will not be able to track users by serial numbers.
Where there's a will, there's a way. Apple is very clear law enforcement can approach them with any AirTag and they will immediately be able to tie it to a user.
Im not logged into GPT (am subscribed for this month tho on my iPhone but that's separate) and able to do a web search and or ask GPT a question.
Actually i am logged into my iCloud on my macbook so guess that's why im seeing the search on that device of mine (not seeing on another where Im not logged into iCloud).
If OpenAI sent out an email today informing me that to maintain access to the current 4o model I will have to pay $1000 a year, and that it would go up another $500 next year... it would still be well worth it to me.
You could be right, but I suspect that you're underestimating the degree to which GPT has become the Kleenex of the LLM space in the consumer zeitgeist.
Based on all of the behaviour psychology books I've read, Claude would have to introduce a model that is 10x better and 10x cheaper - or something so radically different that it registers as an entirely new thing - for it to hit the radar outside of the tech world.
I encourage you to sample the folks in your life that don't work in tech. See if any of them have ever even heard of Claude.
I don’t think people outside of tech hearing about OpenAI more than Claude is really indicative of much. Ask those same people how much they use an LLM and it’s often rare-to-never.
Also, in what way has OpenAI become the Kleenex of the LLM space? Anthropic, Google, Facebook have no gpts, nobody “gpts” something, nobody uses that companies “gpt”.
I would say perhaps OpenAI has become the Napster, MySpace, or Facebook of the LLM space. Time will tell how long they keep that title
This looks quite useful! However could Haystack be made an VSCode extension instead of a fork? So I could use this in Cursor, which is also a VSCode fork.
So many YC folks are forking VSCode for various reasons that mostly revolve around "can't monetize extensions, want to own the platform".
I don't think any of them will be successful, IMO. You want to be an extension because getting software approved is _hard_ at bigcos, it's much easier to trojan horse on an existing tool.
I think Cursor is already looking successful. Most VS Code people I know (including myself) have switched over. I love the idea of Haystack (I was a fan of Light Table back in the day) but if I have to pick between a better UI and an assistant who perform most simple code transforms by English language request, saving hour(s) per day, I’m picking the assistant.
Yeah the productivity optimization here makes sense. We intend to add generative AI features unique to the canvas UI as well to ensure our users don't lose productivity.
I am curious what features you like about Cursor the most? For me it's the CMD/CTRL+K -- I've had mixed experiences with the chat window and Composer.
I could be wrong but I don't believe it's difficult to monetize an extension.
The reason I think there has been an explosion of VS Code forks (e.g. Supermaven, a very successful extension) is that being an extension in VS Code is limiting insofar as what you're able to change in terms of the UI and UX.
You are right about the difficulty of getting into big companies. However, we developed a standalone editor because it's easier to build on top of, and we eventually want to build a very portable browser-based editor that utilizes the canvas view for pull requests, arbitrary code, etc.
We're going to make a "Haystack-lite" extension in the future! I understand the pain here. We chose to go with a VS-code fork so we could maximize the canvas features. I am curious if you would find the "canvas" view distracting when it's on a sidebar as opposed to the main editor?
Thinking about it, a sidebar "canvas" could be more useful comparing to the main editor to me:
* when reading code, I found I jump back and forth the call stack quite often, a visualization of this could help with this navigation, especially with some properly designed shortcut keys.
* I mostly code on MacBook so screen real estate is precious. The canvas as main editor looks like waste a lot of screen space. But the canvas in a sidebar do not have this issue.
1. You can hop back and forth using the "backward/forward" buttons in the top bar, similar to VS Code. Not sure if I misunderstood here.
2. That's fair. You can "pin" editors on the canvas, which allows you to fullscreen editors.
I think part of what makes this work is that ultrawidescreen monitors aren't as impossibly expensive as they once were, so screen real estate can be spent and your spacial reasoning can take over. It might just not work well on a laptop screen.
Shouldn’t these all be smoothed out by UI frameworks, design guidelines and best practices? It doesn’t look like the industry should spend so much productivity on these sanding works?
Yea, I'm not a web developer, but coming from the desktop world, I am shocked by how little web UI frameworks do for you and how buggy their implementation is. Adding padding here and margin there and flex boxes and all that shit just to get a radio button or a drop-down that we do in one line of code on the desktop side? It's like the software development equivalent of using stone tools and chisels to build a car.
Nah - the insulation material costs ~ $0.80/liter, whereas aluminium conductor costs $6.50/liter.
If you can have the conductor 1mm^2 thinner (capable of carrying less current for the same heat production) and the insulation 1mm^2 thicker (capable of handling a higher voltage) and transfer the same power, then you'd save money.
It only works up to a certain limit obviously - the relationship is non-linear and there is an optimal point.
The actual tradeoff involves a lot more modelling, because you need to consider all kinds of other factors, not just the costs of the conductor and insulator.
That's a lot of good information, and I'm no scholar of the various -isms, but are the above attributed directly to Marxism (and I'm not sure where the boundaries lie between Marxism, Communism and Socialism), or should they be attributed to malevolent dictatorships?
... My assumption is that you believe, and above is all evidence pointing in this direction, that Marxism leads to malevolent dictatorships.
Whilst the example of the actions above aren't literal examples of what Marx espouses, they're the end result of societies that have attempted to pursue Marxist ideals. Emergent behaviour.
To be ridiculously reductionist, if Capitalism gets us Epstein and Communism gets us the stats you've provided, I know what I'd choose for my family (hint: being alive beats any alternative).
It's not just emergent behaviour. Marxism encourages communists to rise up in violent revolution against their own countryman.
"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists." - communist manifesto
It's hard to directly quantify what causes what, but in general capitalism happens naturally when people's freedoms are protected, and on the contrary (Marxist) socialism must be forced on people with violence. It doesn't lead to, but requires a totalitarian authority to implement properly.
I don't think that all of them were malevolent either. Most of them probably thought that it would work, and that the end justifies whatever means, or that suffering is necessary for the reward in the end.
I'm going to noodle over that distinction of natural capitalism versus forced socialism.
I'm thinking along the lines of family-level (and maybe extended to friends and family / cooperative small village) socialism is natural, but on a societal level, of the scales we see today, capitalism is natural. Cooperation versus competition. Very interesting.
I don't think that way, at all. Capitalism at the core simply means that everyone can own stuff, and everyone gets to keep what they produce. Ownership means that the owner gets to decide how to use the things they own. Capitalism doesn't mean that things aren't shared, it just means that whoever owns the stuff can decide if they want to share. People naturally want to help each other, so they share stuff that they own. People share their things more readily with people they know. Maybe because they might get the favor returned, or they just want to make them happy.
Capitalism doesn't mean competition over co-operation. It simply means that you don't have to co-operate if you don't get equal rewards, or if you don't get rewards proportional to your effort. People hate to co-operate if someone else gets the rewards. People love to co-operate if they get a fair share of the rewards, which is what happens under capitalism.
Owning stuff leads to trading and markets, which leads to the law of supply and demand and the price system. Just by looking at prices of things, people can make rational decisions about what to produce and what to consume. People are pushed to produce things that are scarce and expensive, and they are pushed to consume things that are abundant and cheap. This is a form of self-organized co-operation, where everyone co-operates automatically by just acting rationally. By looking out for themselves, they help allocate resources for the whole community. The lack of this mechanism is one of the major reasons why totalitarian socialism fails. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
What does it have to do with capitalism? People like that or much worse thrive in non democratic states with no rule of law and absolutely no public transparency (e.g. Beria). It's just we don't really get to hear about them..
These weren’t true Marxism. When me and my communist buddies take over next time you will see a real people’s utopia. Not like the last 47 times. I promise. Word of honor. Everyone will get a pony.
