Personal Agency is a strong characteristic of a personality. AI would have to acquire a personality first. It could probably do this by copying others statistically. In that case, it is only doing what someone else has done.

There is no such thing as real sentient AI theoretically. Our current models are only emulations of humans. Maybe in the future someone will figure out a way for computers to learn how to learn. Then maybe someone will codify computers to acquire base methodologies vs just implementing any methodology it finds in the world.

If the core of the reasoning is the fines and penalties then surely the remedy is to temper the punishment to just fees that need to be fulfilled upon renewal or registration.

I think they have the pathway to merge it right now. But it will cannibalize their sales so they dont want to do that.

The rounded corners is such a key element of apple design. They patented rounded corners on the iphone for precisely this reason. They wanted to trademark this but got a design patent instead. And then samsung notoriously copied this one almost verbatim same radius which pissed off apple.

>one almost verbatim same radius which pissed off apple

So this is what they decided to do? Use so many different rounded radius variations that competitors don't know which one to copy?

> The rounded corners is such a key element of apple design.

See Windows 11.

Windows corner is a lot sharper/smaller than the apple corner.

I don't like him either but he is definitely exchanging Google's future positions and cashing it in for profit now, which reflects positively on him.

For many years since 1997, I would brag and boast about Adobe PageMaker, and everyone would look at me funny and tell me "it doesn't exist". I would insist it did. I used it for web publishing. It was fast. No cruft. It had FTP client built in (which was a little new at the time). It had ability to change file paths in HTML if the file was renamed or saved as something else.

How does Air force one accomplish their data connection?

Air Force One (and all of the other US flying command posts) are basically giant collections of various antennas.

Here's an article from 2017 about (then) recent installation of what were almost certainly satellite communication antenna.

https://www.twz.com/10470/air-force-one-jet-reemerges-with-u...

The problem with the mission statement mentioning Notion is that notion is too big of a product and you are probably only aiming to displace a small part of it.

Secondly, if a server cant be spun up alongside this that serves markdown editing, that others can access immediately without going through a setup process, for guerilla collaboration, then it is not replacing notion. It is simply a different medium.

Notion is a lot of things; pages, triggers, actions, databases, and agents. You are focusing only on pages.

Not 100% sure I understand, but, if you opt into sharing a doc, we do spin up a collaboration server on your behalf, and editors do not have to set anything up to use it. The bulk of the work we've had to do is to make this seamless and good.

For the other points: yes, we aspire to do all of those things. :)

Are those other points, something you can do in Markdown? DB in markdown?

Our approach, which is behind a feature flag right now, is to allow users to attach "assets" to jj change IDs (these are sort of like stable git commit SHAs). This is how we will power inline comments, and it's how we'll power Notion-style SQLite-based databases. We already have, checked in, an implementation of IVM built on top of SQLite, specifically for this purpose. I don't see how we could be a Notion competitor without them.

I am still waiting for iPad to support docking stations and multiple 2-3 monitors. Until then, they are not serious about productivity and making ipad a forst class product.

They should do the same for iPhone.

Actually that was the original name. And it was a more honest name.

It's always been the MoD in the UK afaik, but there was the War Office I suppose.

It was the War Office from 1857 to the mid 60s.

Different entities, but yes I said 'there was the War Office'.

What is currently considered the DoD was built after WW2 as the "National Military Establishment" by the "National Security Act of 1947" which restructured and reformed significant war and military assets under the "Secretary of Defense" and the NME was very quickly renamed the "Department of Defense".

The "Department of War" during WW2 was in control of the Army, and was separate from the Department of the Navy and eventual Department of the Air Force (spun off from the Army) and was headed by the "Secretary of War".

Changing the name to "Defense" was an intentional act by a President and government who wanted to reduce the power of the Military Industrial Complex and reduce the "War" focus of a subset of the government, and force the different departments to work together and share toys.

The reorganization was desired for many reasons but Truman made lots of talk about how this was about the national defense and made gestures to the Pearl Harbor attack as something relevant. Different departments failing to work together was a huge problem during WW2, and other wars. Putting them all under one single cabinet position, the Secretary of Defense, was a significant point.

This vocab was used during the war, about the reorganization being about the defense of the nation.

Similarly, NATO is a defense only pact, in very clear terms.

There was tons of debate in the US government at the time as to whether we had viable intelligence of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor ahead of time and it wasn't properly utilized or disseminated. In fact, there were many such instances in the Pacific Theater early on, where poor intelligence handling resulted in worse battle outcomes.

The point of the Department of Defense is to Defend America, and they do that by being in control of our Military. Letting our defense assets bully the world is the Utter Failure of the American voting public over the past 100 years.