I suspect this is more about all but one of the datacenter moratoriums which were also up to vote passing.

Which I think is overall good, not really the moratorium thing itself, but the fact that real human voters have a clear unambiguous preference that to everyone's surprise is being respected and implemented. Not getting steamrolled over by companies greasing the right palms is amazing.

Imagine, voters in a democracy being able to decide what behavior we find unacceptable rather then it being dictated at us by the richest person in the room.

Arc conceptually merges bookmarks and pinned tabs. Non-pinned tabs are cleared automatically, and you just move a tab above the line to keep it. It's so conducive to the way my brain works, it's not an exaggeration when I say it was a revelation when I first discovered it.

Most browsers try to port the vertical tabs or the split view and proudly say "look, we did it, you can now switch from Arc" but none get this tab concept right, except for Zen which regrettably uses Firefox/Gecko as its base.

The ask is to let mathematicians outside of OpenAI use it, ie. at least wait until the model is released.

I don’t think that’s sufficient. If they want to be good stewards of mathematical research and not just doing marketing, they need to at the very least tell us the datasets and any techniques they used to train this model. IMO that’s probably just as if not more valuable than a dump of un-reviewed results.

They won’t because they don’t care and the only way it got this good is something along the lines of they trained on every mathematician’s codex sessions even if they opted out because they consider the thinking traces or output and metadata fair game.

It's honestly shit marketing that only cultivates spite and erodes their whole brand. This is a total ego trip.

Which mathematicians though? Only fields medalists? Grad students? Any hobbyist wanting access?

These models are too expensive for broad access unfortunately.

ChatGPT pro is accessible to literally anyone who has a job and lives in a developed country.

Literally every single one of these papers was developed with an internal model that not even most OpenAI employees have access to.

Why is this important? Do you not think that at some point, probably sooner rather than later, math researchers across the world will have access to similar capabilities?

This is sort of like discounting putting humans in space because only a few nations have the means to actually do it at the moment.

I don’t quite get the situation. After merging a PR/MR (with the squash feature of Gitlab or GitHub) the equality you describe holds and there’s a nice sequential git log.

I quite like that I can tell my colleagues they can commit whenever they feel like it (and should probably commit more often than they feel like) because it becomes one clean commit in the end anyways.

In my experience the situation with GitHub is either that

- you apply the commits as-is on the target branch and end up with a ton of pointless "fix this" and "fix that" commits that were created during the review process,

- you squash everything and lose what might otherwise have been meaningful, useful commit boundaries for the purpose of bisecting, reverting or just investigating the history of changes or

- you rework your commits and force push changes to the branch you want to pull and create confusion as to what changed because that's not usually how review is conducted with GitHub.

I think the pull request is a bad abstraction. Not terrible, and certainly easy to grasp, but bad enough that everything you do with it is a compromise. At the very best, if you apply with the squash+rebase strategy and limit the scope of your PRs to what makes perfect sense as just one commit in the target branch, it's just a convoluted way of working with individual commits.

Off the top of my head:

* Your agent can easily be configured to always allow certain MCP tools. This is very hard to do for only certain REST endpoints. This is even more relevant in enterprise settings, where permission configs might be done centrally.

* If the provider wants to change how an endpoint works, it's a breaking change for a REST API. Not with MCP, as the "endpoints" (tools) are dynamic and tell the agent how to use them.

It also seems they are very strict regarding who can notarize their apps.

> Companies will now qualify if they:

> * Meet a moderate financial-stability bar as scored by Dun & Bradstreet. > * Are publicly traded or owned by a publicly traded company. > * Have received venture funding from an established investment firm. > * Have completed a financial audit by a licensed accountant. > * Are a government entity, educational institution, or nonprofit.

Those requirements apply to direct distribution or alternate marketplaces. Developers not meeting those criteria can still participate in non-Apple distribution by submitting to an alternate marketplace.

The "alternative marketplace" should be replaced with "no marketplace." How do people accept this "alternative marketplace" idea? This is obviously a way to increase friction in order to maintain dominance - and the solution is obvious - no marketplace at all.

No, those are the qualifications to run an app marketplace.

Independent web distribution of an app requires only notarization.