They neutered the old Google. It was faster, but it kept screwing up to the point that (just a few weeks ago) I was forced to update to Gemini, even after holding out for awhile.

TLDR; Google screws you either way, so you didn't really lose anything ... and now if you ask it for the Rotten Tomatoes score of something, it answers correctly most of the time.

They neutered the old Google. It was faster, but it kept screwing up to the point that (just a few weeks ago) I was forced to update to Gemini, even after holding out for so long.

TLDR; Google screws you either way, so you didn't really lose anything ... and now if you ask it for the Rotten Tomatoes score of something, at least it answers correctly most of the time.

A bunch of "economists" from companies with vested financial interest in convincing everyone their products are world-changing all agree that their products are world-changing ... ... that isn't news, it's the definition of industry propaganda.

Do you have any non-propaganda, unbiased evidence whatsoever that consolidating into fewer companies will in any way result in greater production of creative works?

Because if not, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the statement you quoted isn't actually propaganda (it's just a statement of fact).

America is a democratic society, and its rich are just ordinary citizens. They may have more $$$, but they are otherwise equal to others, not a separate noble caste.

In other words, they're "just like us" ... but they should never have to mingle with the peasant caste when they travel! That would be un-American!

I feel like people who make comments like this have no concept of American history. Naked graft like this has happened, just as bad if not worse, many times in US history!

Now, should we be concerned that we're moving backwards instead of forwards on corruption? Absolutely!

But it's just flat out ignorant and counterproductive to pretend this level of government corruption has never occurred ... when US history is full of it. Please people, read some history, or else we really all are doomed to repeat it.

There's a fundamental difference you're missing: all the businesses you listed want to keep you as a customer. Broadcom *does not*.

For their model to work, customers just have to pay their (wildly) increased rates long enough for Broadcom to make back the $$$ they spent to acquire VMWare (they'd like to make a tidy profit too, but with all the VMWare assets they acquire that's guaranteed ... as long as they cover the acquisition cost).

Google, Amazon and Microsoft may all be shitty companies with shitty plans to keep their customers while doing a shitty job of serving them ... but their business model still fundamentally revolves around keeping customers, not screwing them over so badly they leave.

This made me laugh ... then cry.

Broardcom's entire business model with these acquisitions (they did the same thing with others before VMWare) is to acquire something everyone depends on AND can't easily switch off ... and then jack up the prices by an insane amount.

It doesn't matter if most customers eventually leave: they will stick with what they have, no matter the cost, long enough for Broadcom to cover the entire cost of acquisition. At the end of the day they have more money than they started with, a small fraction of customers still paying, and some significant IP.

They win all around, and everyone else (including the acquired company and its now-fired employees) loses.

/plan is not how you loop in Claude: you use /loop or /goal.

goal solves your concern: the model doesn't stop when the code compiles, it stops when a second (independent) Claude evaluates a condition you setup to be true.

e.g. /goal Ensure all unit tests in /tests pass, then verify the build exits with code 0. Stop only when there are zero failing tests.

I predict that this poster A) said the exact same thing about smartphones and B) now owns the latest, priciest iPhone.

What BS: just be born as rich as Musk and with a little work you too can be just like him!

I've heard a lot of people say good stuff about the RayNeo Air 4 Pro AR Glasses ... which cost a fraction of this: $300.

I understand that these have more "bells and whistles" ... but if you ignore those bells and whistles, I'm very curious how the core experience (comfort, readable screen, battery, etc.) compares between these two.

In short, I suspect the $300 glasses that focus on just being a monitor will be a better overall experience than this $2+k monstrosity because of all those bells and whistles ... but I'm curious to hear if that's true.

TFA says nothing whatsoever about that. What it says is:

So again, nothing about not posting cop abuse videos. If you have some other information beyond the article, share it ... but otherwise, why are you wasting your life spreading FUD, over something you clearly know nothing about?

AI output is not deterministic, nor is it 100% predictable ... but it absolutely is predictable, to a point.

You can give an LLM the same context and prompt, and (at least nine times out of ten) it will give you basically the same answer. Again, that's not deterministic, and the exact answer may vary ... but if you don't see (a lot of) predictability in your AI's output, you're not using a major/popular model.