I also didn’t like the example. How may people know the difference between chocolate quality?

Some for sure, but I wouldn’t count on it for interpreting price elasticity.

I still believe in the premise because of the action on Facebook buy nothing groups.

Did you miss the part where people would pay more for the "high quality" chocolate when the price wasn't zero?

This is not an unknown issue at the fruit co.

Can anyone speculate on any rational if not good reasons for not solving this problem yet?

I don’t work at the fruit co but since you asked for speculations. Mine: the fruit co designers are still designing a nice interface to show the overflow, because they obviously think that the Windows tray overflow looked inelegant and are still searching for the ideal UI. But the designers themselves don’t have a lot of menu bar apps so they don’t think it’s a priority.

Or perhaps the teams at fruit co found a way to claim that their overflow is an innovative new feature and not copied from some other designs.

While they do a ton of good work, they do love to claim everything was first invented by them.

Probably the same response I just saw someone reply with in this very thread:

"You shouldn't have so many utilities running"

It's the go-to Apple user response to anything the OS doesn't support or does poorly: "Why would you want to do that?"

Considering that I need a good dozen utility apps to override absolutely bonkers macOS design descicions there is no way around that.

That’s the company response but I’m definitely not the only long-term Apple user whose go-to response is a sympathetic nod followed by a long rant about Tim Cook and his contempt for software engineering.

Pelican is drafting rear peloton

Apple continues to compare to prior versions of Apple Silicon. I suspect it is a mix of trying to provide useful, realistic upgrade information and numbers that still sound good for those not paying attention.

I don't think any org doing this is necessarily being deceptive, so long as there's some reasonable basis for the chosen comparable(s).

For example, comparing a new iPhone to a prior Android phone might make sense if the install base is considerably large and Apple is targeting the cohort for user acquisition. (~"These benchmarks are not for you.")

The community will always run the numbers and get the clicks for the benchmarks not filled in by the 1st party. I noticed what appeared to be some movement from Apple in content they've produced to get ahead of this with recent product content.

Apple doesn’t compare themselves to Android the same way Coke doesn’t compare themselves to Pepsi.

Thanks for the notes, for those interested in learning more:

- Lattner tweeted a link to this: https://www.modular.com/blog/day-zero-launch-fastest-perform...

- Unsloth prior post on gemma 3 finetuning: https://unsloth.ai/blog/gemma3

The trick isn't to patch it once, but to create a system that can reproduce your patches against each release as they come in. Then, when code changes make fixes non-trivial calling in a headless session to heal your fixes.

The first trick will be avoiding getting flagged for running an unofficial build.

On a related note, ChatGPT.com changed how it handles large text pastes this past week.

It now behaves like Claude, attaching the paste as a file for upload rather than inlining it.

This affected page UX some and reduces the cost of the browser tab some.

At some point, maybe still true, very long conversations ~froze/crashed ChatGPT pages.

It is also intended to protect the usage patterns of pro subscribers.

As has been amply explained, the API pricing per token is far more for equivalent use when maximizing a subscription plan.

It isn’t really a massive hurdle to deal with this full SPA load check. If one is even aware it exists they already have the skills to bypass it anyway.

I get why people would “what about” the automation inherit in what OpenAI is doing but that is a separate matter.

Other businesses and applications can put into place their own hurdles and anti bot practices to protect the models they’ve leaned into—-and they have been.

The key early signals from OpenAI FB missed were when OpenAI Five was featured DOTA 2's The International in 2018 and in April 2019 when it beat the pro team OG.

I think the people who care about that game and used the types media channels FB monitored was too small to show up on the company's radar.

But I'm not convinced Zuck was truly all in on VR. I thought the switch to Meta was a hasty attempt to rebrand under fire of a whistleblower / document leak cycle.

Despite all the money spent on VR labs, I always thought the pivot was much more of a Philip-Morris -> Altria thing than Dunkin' Donuts -> Dunkin'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI_Five#Reception

Zuck is all-in on building their own platform and becoming a gatekeeper like Apple, Google and Microsoft, rather than operating within their ecosystems.

VR was one dream to achieve that, it’s more difficult to envision that with AI which is why I suspect he was more reluctant to embrace it. AI models are more likely to become a commodity and running inside one of the platforms of the gatekeepers, which is not what Zuck wants.

That’s fine but this dream was previously pursued with mobile hardware.

FWIW, oculus represented a true competitive advantage. And I don’t think it was a coincidence that the Supernatural acquisition was temporarily blocked by the feds.

I think Apple was genuinely worried that fitness was (or still is) a killer use case and threat to Vision Pro.

The delay was enough to make FB lose focus / pivot again into AI.