Tax payer is funding a lot of resilience stuff. At least in places where resilience exists at all. GP is where emergency services will charge their radios once their generator fuel runs out. Or whoever the local community improvises as substitute to emergency services, if there aren't any. As a tax payer who doesn't have the opportunity to do anything like that I really don't mind subsidizing.
A bit sarcastic, but still too close to reality for comfort:
For the managers, it's about a bonus. For engineers it's the existential question of future hirability: every future employer will love the candidate with experience in operating a $500k/a cluster. They guy who wrote a library that got linked into a service... Yeah, that's the kind they already have, not interested, move along.
Better DEM than ancient SRTM have been available and used for a long time, by those who are fine with using different resolution in different areas. But they won't save you from the surface climb at a tunnel and unless your resolution is so massive that you can tell a coordinate on the edge of the road from one right on the other side of the retaining wall, you're still out of luck. You really don't want to get some interpolation between those two. And if you had that resolution, you'd likely discover that your road network vectors aren't precise enough to match.
DEM just aren't good for routing in a road network. What you want is a data model that stores elevation along the paths in the graph, not a 2D height field. Some routing tools specific to cycling do this, using numbers from barometric recording during actual rides, but even there it's rare and when you know what to look for it's easy to recognize the ones that try to get by with just a DEM.
An acceptable compromise could be precomputed elevations-along-the-path from DEM, that factor in semantic map information like tunnels and non-grade crossings, and turn up filtering to eleven when the DEM grid has a strong grade in a direction that isn't roughly the direction of the path.
Counter position (not sure it's better than yours): what are the chances that device makers would actually offer seriously local, and not just something that does work in airplane mode, but then still connects to their cloud later, if not for post-sale monetization then at least for features providing better brand lock-in? I mean just look at how well the market for TV sets that don't try to shove "services" down buyers' throats is developing...
But sure, making money with standalone "local first is our headline feature" will be incredibly hard against those, no doubt about that. In light of the limited quality of what local models can achieve, the privacy bonus just won't compel many to pay. But that only means that this "morning with Claude" you are suggesting might be just the right amount of investment for the result you'd realistically expect. But is that so bad? I'd argue the reverse: bundling up the low hanging fruit but not by some hobbyist who will lose interest two weeks on but by a company big enough the keep it going while small enough to not be a VC furnace that will inevitably turn on users once the runway runs out (*), that's an opportunity to fill a niche few others can. Valuable for users who don't want to roll their own deployment of open source models (can't, or unwilling to commit to keeping them up to date, assuming that Ente does keep that ball rolling), and also valuable for the company of the investment actually is so low that it pays by raising awareness for their other products that apparently do earn them money.
(*) I was googling around a little wondering if they actually are as close to bootstrapped as they seem on the surface, and yes, that's supposedly the core idea [0], but despite that they also took 100 kUSD in "non-diluting" (basically a gift then?) from Mozilla with the explicit goal "to promote independent AI and machine learning" [1]. So not a CEO whim but following up to a promise made earlier. If they actually did avoid spending all that money on a one-off but went smaller planning to keep it current for a longer time horizon, I'd congratulate them on an excellent choice.
The hn discussion for [1] seems to be completely missing the point, that Mozilla program isn't about funding an image host (yeah, I'd also prefer if Mozilla focused on the Browser and perhaps Thunderbird, but the foundation is what it is): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41681666
So that's what's keeping Microsoft from just running WINE on an MS-flavored Linux or perhaps a clean slate kernel as their next OS. I've been wondering for a while, this is by far the best explanation.
The Windows Kernel (and arguably the Windows APIs) are the only good part of Windows; they should dump everything else and run Linux above it; wait they did do that and then changed it to a boring VM.
I was disappointed when Microsoft dropped original WSL.
I'll admit I wasn't a Windows user at the time, nor since for that matter. But I had been before.
I knew the history of the "Windows Services for UNIX" and thought that it was incredibly interesting to have the Windows kernel, full driver support, NTFS, and the ability to just use Windows normally, but also be able to just do UNIX-type stuff more or less normally.
Which is what I've been doing on my Mac since the early 2000s.
Then Microsoft had to make Windows a complete shit-show. Not like it hasn't happened before, but they really got themselves in deep this time.
If Valve started to routinely do Bad Things on Steam they'd be gone pretty quickly. Many would go to GoG, some just stop buying games. Bad Things do occasionally happen (bad things like those "oops, we don't actually have licenses for the music used in the game you bought" revokes), but Valve keeps succeeding in keeping it to a rather low background noise level. Competitors have two decades of being that good or better to catch up. You can't buy trust, you can just put money into not losing any of the trust that grew over time. When competitors have done that for two decades, Valve, unless they fail in the meantime, will have even more.
I heard the same thing for Discord last month, and reddit and Twitter a few years back. It kind of worked for Twitter due to be outstandiningly bad, but it still didn't "kill" Twitter in the colloquial sense.
I don't see it going down any differently with Steam. It may take a dent and open up a competitor, but it won't do a move so catastrophic that it losses its leader status from that alone.
Which of them are privately owned? In a publicly traded company, there's an inherent logic that people who believe that the company can get by with squeezing customers a little harder will end up with higher projections than those who think it's better to get by with a moderate approach. Price goes up with the bids from the squeezers and occasionally a moderate will sell until eventually the squeezers own an identity-defining fraction. Valve only is what it is because of the ownership structure, its closeness to being bootstrapped (I assume that in reality ownership is a little more complicated, but close enough)
We could also call those squeezers "optimists", and publicly traded implies ownership by the most optimistic (well, the most optimistic who have money to invest). Leading to behavior patterns that could be described as suicidally chasing the most unrealistic money making projections. (and founder majority stakes are surprisingly susceptible to falling in line with those optimists, because those owners still don't want to see their valuation going down, doubly so of they ever started borrowing against their stakes)
"pretty quickly" is a few years, not one month. Chrome dominated the browser market pretty quickly even though the richer bigger company microsoft already had most of the browser marketshare, and that was 3 years. Before those 3 years it seemed like nobody would be able to make a dent in microsofts monopoly, and then it was gone in just 3 years.
If steams fumbles as hard as microsoft did with internet explorer they too could be mostly gone in 3 years, replaced by a giant competitors product.
The Reddit blackout is coming on 3 years old now. The twitter kerfuffle is almost 4? I'm not holding my breath.
And yes, chrome is a great example. That came right on the legs of Microsoft losing an anti trust case. For something that seems so quaint in 2026. I miss when regulations had teeth.
An interesting perspective: general, absolutely, just nowhere near superhuman in all kinds of tasks. Not even close to human in many. But intelligent? No doubt, far beyond all not entirely unrealistic expectations.
But that seems almost like an unavoidable trade-off. Fiction about the old "AI means logic!" type of AI is full of thought experiments where the logic imposes a limitation and those fictional challenges appear to be just what the AI we have excels at.
Do you think that we should live in a world where investors who buy on a comical misinterpretation of an acronym are protected from their naivety?
Why isn't there a minority shareholder lawsuit on the news because someone bought MSFT not realizing that Copilot isn't actually certified to fly an airliner? A certain type of people would likely just buy MSFT on a massive lever and then if the bet fails to work out sue pretending that they did not understand.
People have been hearing for the last three years about how a specific acronym, "AGI", is the final frontier of artificial intelligence and how it's going to change the entire economy around it. They've been hearing about this quasi-theoretical, very specific thing, and a lot of them don't even know what the "G" stands for.
People haven't been hearing for years about a mythical "copilot", and as such I think people are much more likely to think it's not anything more than a cute nickname.
Are you suggesting that this is just a coincidence? The acronym AGI doesn't even make sense for Agentic AI Infrastructure, which should be AAII; they're clearly calling it AGI to mislead people. I refuse to think that the people running Arm are so stupid that they didn't even Google the acronym before releasing the chip.
You think it's a "comical misinterpretation", but I don't think it is. When I saw the article, I thought "shit; did they manage to crack AGI?", and I clicked the article and was disappointed. I suspect a lot of people aren't even going to read the press release.
It goes a little deeper than "does not care" though: worn out can also be a symptom of caring a lot. Caring in the way of having a strong desire to identify with the stuff worn, and newly bought stuff just not checking that box. Then any newly procured garb, no matter how carefully selected, perhaps even customized, will feel like being dressed up as someone else. It's like a trap, just not being wired for new clothes. I wonder if there's a connection to childhood dress-up play, as in kids who had good times masquerading as some archetype are less likely later in life to fall into that "that's-not-me" trap regarding new clothes.
It's caring about the wrong thing if you're looking to improve your life though. You need to logically reason through norms and expectations and realize you gotta put on the correct costume for the setting, even if you don't identify with it.
Otherwise "Thats not me" will be describing things like "successful career" and "romantic relationships".
I think many men look at clothes like the wrapping paper of a gift. They absolutely don't care what a gift comes wrapped in, it's the content that matters. Choosing wrapping paper or even thinking about it is boring as hell.
So they then project themselves onto women, and are then surprised that expectations are different.
I wonder how clean the clothes looked, however. Clothes can be well worn but still appear clean and taken care of. There is a difference between "this is my favorite shirt" and "these are my grubbies I use while cleaning the house".
A man still strongly emotionally attached to faded, worn out logos from many years ago is probably not an appealing signal to most women looking for a man to date.
It's more than a game of scale: people who almost but not quite fall for the scam that follows the spam incur real cost to them. They don't want to trick as many people as possible with their mail, they want to trick only the most vulnerable. The obvious (to most people) mistakes are in there deliberately.
This changes, of course, with phishing. Will phishing by email even survive when voice imitation calls become more and more available? I guess it will, the bar for monetization is too low bar with resellable accounts and the like.
reply