They can barely make a phone at that price point.
Sure they can, they just don’t want to.
Most are bought by corps or individuals who treat them as an appliance.
Funny you mention corps. I work for a multinational and what our IT does is buy the base level as an appliance and then manually upgrade user RAM on an as needs / as approved basis. Multitasking rarely requires a higher end computer, but always requires more available RAM. Corps definitely play with this stuff.
Mine did too, but it was to circumvent a requirement to get CEO approval for purchases over x. We weren’t a multinational, ut would custom order laptops with no hard drive and hard drives separately so we weren’t below the limit and then put the machines together.
You're not wrong, but this is a website populated mostly by that 1%. I suspect that most of the people here do upgrade components or build their own PCs from parts.
For those that want to do that a Mac is not the machine for them.
Precisely.
When anyone pulls the GDPR card it's almost always cause they're marketing your private data to everyone and their uncle.
It's more than just GDPR compliance, which can be substantial and why some companies block their websites from access by EU IP addresses. Apple, as a gatekeeper, is in the EU's crosshairs and on issue is interoperability. Apple sees this translation feature as a selling point, and if the EU were to require Apple to allow other manufacturers to access and offer it, they lose what they think I an important feature unique to AirPods. As a result, no soup for the EU.
Alien spacecraft are not going to travel for hundreds of years just so they can fly over a trailer park in Arkansas and then go back home.
I often wonder how they manage to sneak into the solar system undetected, only to be seen buzzing that trailer park, and then disappearing again. Alien teenagers on a joy ride?
What model did you use? I used GPT-5 and it responded with Chiefs, Titans, Texans, Ravens, Giants, Eagles, Saints, and Browns. Looks right.
Whatever model, I just used the web browser version. You do point out an interesting quirk, sometimes the same prompt will yield different answers; not sure if that is a result of model differences.
Here is a list of the NFL teams that have six letters in their name: Bears, Bengals, Browns, Colts, Giants, Lions,Packers, Ravens, and Saints.
My philosophy is if a kid doesn't want to learn, as long as they don't disrupt the class and impact others, fine. They'll eventually get hit with a clue by four...
We're all better off if they're learning, as we're ostensibly paying for them to be able to do, themselves included.
I agree, but expecting teachers to enforce rules that will just put them between parents and administration I they do then at some point you just have to say "Not my problem."
Overall my high schooler says the "collect phones in a box at the start of class" is far cheaper, more convenient, faster, and more effective than Yondr.
While I agree with that, the first time a phone gets stolen or broken, the parents will demand the school pay for it since it was in their custody when it happened. My philosophy is if a kid doesn't want to learn, as long as they don't disrupt the class and impact others, fine. They'll eventually get hit with a clue by four...
Let the teachers enforce it. 1st offense, take away the phone for the period. 2nd offense, call the parents, take away the phone. 3rd offense, kick them out. Teachers see it. Back them up!
More like
Of course, even step 1 won't happen because the school district doesn't want 'problems' and tells teachers not to do anything, and by the way you can't fail anyone either.
In recent years I lost interest as it slid into woeness. So now we know why.
Yea, that whole "Oh woe is me, my world is changing and I don't like it" attitude gets old.
OTOH, creating a new Mickey Mouse cartoon clearly crosses the line and, IMHO, the AI company should be liable of infringement, since they are the ones who actually created the work.
The court case cited was not split or confused over the fact that what you just typed is false from a legal perspective (although you can obviously still have that opinion). The ruling was clear as day on this matter, even though there was more nuance when it came to the legality of how training material was obtained.
Which was my point, thank you for agreeing with me, because that is just what I said: The article you reference is a split decision - AI can train on works they purchased, but could be taken to court over using pirated copies. Per TFA:
The thrust of the studios’ lawsuits will likely be decided by one question: Are AI companies covered by fair use, the legal doctrine in intellectual property law that allows creators to build upon copyrighted works without a license? On that issue, a court found earlier this year that Amazon-backed Anthropic is on solid legal ground, at least with respect to training. The technology is “among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Alsup. Still, the court set the case for trial over allegations that the company illegal downloaded millions of books to create a library that was used for training. Anthropic, which later settled the lawsuit, faced potential damages of hundreds of millions of dollars stemming from the decision that may have laid the groundwork for Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney and Universal to get similar payouts depending on what they unearth in discovery over how Midjourney obtained copies of thousands of films and TV shosws (sic) that were repurposed to teach its image generator.
We can quibble over whether being potentially liable for using illegally obtained works means you can't train on them, which lawyers will no doubt make bank on arguing, but until that questions is resolved it remains to be seen what AI can and can't legally use to train.
What I responded to was the OP's Horseshit. Artists, authors and musicians have lost cases over and over again on this; a statement that is partially true, i.e. you can train on legally acquired material but are open to possible copyright infringement for pirated material. That, per TFA, is still going to trial.
As or what you responded to, if you can cite case law where fair use is extended beyond how it is applied currently and thus it is OK to use copyrighted/trademarked to create new works that are substantially identical to the point a reasonable person can't tell if they were created by the owner and sell them commercially, please do. I seriously doubt any court has said it's legal to use AI to create a movie or create art work for t-shirts, for example, that uses output almost identical to copyrighted material and claim fair use. As for the examples in TFA, they do not look like fair use such as where someone is comparing the two for an article (As is done in TFA) , or parody, IMHO, I think a court needs to rule that absent the traditional exemptions, creating near exact versions is a violation.
Horseshit. Artists, authors and musicians have lost cases over and over again on this. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/25...
The article you reference is a split decision - AI can train on works they purchased, but could be taken to court over using pirated copies. That makes sense to me. It also did not seem to address the issue of what is the legal status of the AI output, just how copyrighted works could be used for training. T.
The other question, is who is guilty of copyright/trademark infringement if they use AI to produce copies of copyrighted/trademarked material. AI is certainly a tool, but it is also creator of the work, just as someone who uses Photoshop to do the same thing is using a tool and is a creator; only in AI's case the two are the same.
It seems reasonable to use AI to write a plotline about a brilliant detective who uses deduction to solve crimes and has a sidekick who helps him, set it in Berlin and have the case revolve around a person who appeared to be murdered but was really alive and seeking revenge on an abusive lover. It could tap into Sherlock Holmes and similar stories to come up with a story and, IMHO, not be infringing.
OTOH, creating a new Mickey Mouse cartoon clearly crosses the line and, IMHO, the AI company should be liable of infringement, since they are the ones who actually created the work.
his case, per TFA, seems to hinge on how the works were obtained as well as the output it generates. In addition, since they charge for it, it possibly is a commercial copyright issue as well with significant damages.
Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?
