If the appeal of an Apple product is to signal class superiority, why would they advertise features at all? Why do TTS if your userbase instead uses your product not for it's functionality, but for social status? Apple used to produce leading edge products but it seems they're so far behind they're now going for the computer nostalgia market.

You mean like I have been able to do with my android phone for the past half decade?

Look, I'm trying really hard not to troll here, but the marketing on this is just insane. Advertising a feature (speech-to-text) as if it was new when Windows and Android have had that same feature for decades makes Apple and their users look hopelessly outdated.

Dragon Naturally Speaking would run on a Pentium 133 with 16MB of RAM and no internet connection in 1997. It worked.

If you need a new Apple product to do this, I would recommend considering donating your existing Apple device to a museum or selling it to a collector.

This isn't the first time, though. Brain implants have been around a long time, and brain rejection of the foreign object has happened every single time without exception.

This is much closer to a flerfer arguing that the Earth will be flat this time.

How is any of that relevant?

If that's the game you want to play, OK.

Bacteria outnumber all other living things. Statistically, there's only one gender and all else is an abberation. This is confirmed, as the Y chromosome is simply an X chromosome that is badly degraded.

Humans are tetrapods, and therefore fish. Land-living fish are an abberation and can be ignored.

You see? That's a really, really stupid game to play, because it is trivial to show that it leads to nonsense.

Abberation is the entire basis on which all science is built.

You can only speak more freely if you agree with Musk. Disagree with him and you're banned. That's narry a "freedom" worthy of the name.

The article seems to be talking about identifiable sub-sequences that are used to compose more complex sequences. Whether they're the equivalent of phonemes, syllables, or words is, from the looks of things unknown. But journalists have to write accessibly, which automatically means they can't write accurately.

Analysis shows that their speech is extremely complex and definitely useful. We have already identified sequences representing personal identifiers. These are not animal grunts, they're extremely complex speech patterns that we know carry complex information.

I have no idea where you get your information from, but it's obviously not remotely accurate of from any actual researchers. It also sounds like it's a good 40-50 years out of date, at the very least.

There's actually a lot of information that they communicated in efforts to mitigate the problem of hunters.

We know that whales introduce themselves with a standardised series of clicks and whistles, followed by a sequence that is unique to that whale. Other whales in the area then send a standardised sequence followed by that same unique sequence.

The order is consistent, as are the standardised sequences, and all cetaceans enter a group by this method.

This is, without any fear of doubt, indicative of a notion of protocols and that requires at least a basic distinction between nouns and not-nouns.

How much further you can go is unclear. AI can probably detect standardised constructs, but we wouldn't necessarily know what T they referred to.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, an 18 year old in a trench learning a second language is wondering what English word is used for facing off against Russian infantry, artillery, and tanks.

Have you ever considered that Google prefers Left-leaning employees, because those who emphasize personal responsibility and self-improvement are generally more expensive than those who don't?

Someone who values equality over competence is more likely to be more concerned with the equality of salaries rather than what their contribution is actually worth to the company, or what the company could actually afford to pay them. For example, two decades ago, Motorola made roughly a half-million dollars per employee, but paid only a very small fraction of that in salaries. After a particularly underperforming quarter, the CEO "gave up" his million dollar salary in symbolic penance, even though if distributed to all 65k employees equally, it would have resulted in only about $16 per employee.

From a large-company perspective, it makes more sense to hire young, naive, and cheap employees than do the difficult work of hiring experts, building long-term relationships, and paying people enough to support a family.

Alternative headline written by a publication not captured by large corporate interests.