And that is a good phone.

Or are they more mentally fit due to more social interactions and navigating a car?

Any details on that?

Microsoft has done a pretty thorough job of locking companies in like this, particularly through authentication and authorization systems (Active Directory) and the locked-down IT management infrastructure around them.

Add to this that all of the applications I use on macOS or Windows are either open source or at least cross-platform anyway. As long as the apps don't change, neither does the way I work; not really.

... without impacting the listening experience?

And how can you check for that watermark?

... with all this AI-sh1t going on is that it's fundamentally non-deterministic in nature. Stunts like these are 10 levels above the non-sense SEO and Co. have been doing for more than a decade, and that was annoying as f*ck already. This new manipulation garbage of LLMs already (occasionally) spitting out their very own version of garbage has me running for the hills and choosing another profession.

Yeah, I use AI to write my code, but that's what I'll be running in the end anyway. There is no AI bot that I trust with anything mission-critical, wether online or on-prem.

Lidar doesn't guarantee things, but since you brought up fog, guess what *can not* sense well in fog? Cameras. LIDAR and RADAR do better in fog.

Yes the problem with self driving goes beyond having the right sensors. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right sensors.

He's not lying, he's simply stating that you can give automation super human senses, and it would just be a complete idiot that would be so against those senses even in principle that hehwould remove common radar sensors from his car, just to prove a point.

He's not talking about worst human case or maybe even typical human. He's saying that confining the solution to cameras makes it only as safe as the safest human, which is fair.

Radar is pretty cheap for cars. LIDAR has similarly gotten pretty cheap. Being anti-LIDAR had at least some justification when LIDAR could only be had for thousands of dollars and saying we can't afford it. Being anti-RADAR was stupid from the moment that sentiment was expressed.

This is a stupid waste of time that could not have *possibly* earned them that much, a single ad in a very narrow context to a fairly small demographic. They risk their reputation on what has to be a relative pittance. Same on when they toyed with 'heated seats as a service'. A demographic that was probably happy to pay, but the annoyance was enough..

Similarly, GM has decided to move toward no support for phone interoperability. They are de-featuring cars that might be over $90,000 in the hopes that *maybe* people will accede to $10/month for the features their phone gives them already. Risking over $10k profit on a unit to have a somewhat higher chance at an additional $10/month.

After 26 years a loyal customer they finally managed to be such an obnoxious nuisance that I quit them and moved to a (way) cheaper and better provider roughly 6 months ago. And I'll never return.

What ideas are those? Are you familiar with the policies of Stalin and Mao in any way, or are you just parroting something somebody else told you?

And here I thought the First Impact was billions of years ago, when the Black Moon carrying Lilith crashed into the Earth.

I demand at *least* "Ultraintelligence". How can I settle for "Superintelligence"?

Or give them a budget and don't micromanage how they work but instead evaluate their results.

Problem is that management would actually have to understand the work and the business, and I suppose that is just too hard.

That's an interesting observation. Yet, apparently, the little widgets at either end of the cable are a potential national security risk.