I think it depends less on workflow and more on screen layout. If you run your browser maximized on a landscape-mode display, there's a lot of horizontal real estate that isn't very well-used, while vertical space is at a premium. So it makes sense to move tabs to the side.

On the other hand, if you don't maximize your window but keep it as narrow as possible (so you can see other windows) but just wide enough that sites render well, then you'll probably prefer them on top.

On the gripping hand, if you're like me and run your browser full-screen on a portrait mode screen, then you have gobs of vertical real-estate and tabs on top definitely makes sense.

(I have three monitors, a 32" (landscape) in the center, which is where my IDE, editors, and "focused" work lives, and a 27" portrait orientation monitor on each side. The left one has a full-screen browser window for work stuff and the right one has a full-screen browser window for personal stuff. It's fantastic.)

Mmmm.... if anything it's "what the Google engineers want emphasized". Executives at Google have surprisingly little control over technical decisions. For nearly all of Google's existence it's been an almost completely bottom-up driven company and while in the last few years management has been trying to exert more control it's a very, very slow process.

It's actually the engineering-driven culture that produces Google's infamous tendency to abandon products. Stuff gets built because some engineers think it's a good idea and convince their managers to let them run with it. Then eventually it gets boring and engineers tend to wander off to other teams in search of something interesting. If the product has managed to achieve significant userbase and/or revenue stream (and keep in mind that both are measured on Google scales; so anything less than 100M users or $1B/year is "not signficant").

In a top-down company products don't get built until they have significant executive support, which requires a fairly detailed plan, which gets executed and adjusted, and if an exec's project is in trouble it will get support. At Google products kind of wander out the door and into the world and if they happen to be a hit, great, if not, well, unless there are legally-binding contracts obligating the company to support something, it just gets shut down. Even with the projects that the executive leadership are really excited about (like AI!), their influence is mostly limited to shoveling resources at it.

Anyway, the point is that execs likely have little to no influence on Gemini training beyond setting very broad guidelines, and even those might not have much effect.

You have to treat the plastic screen with more care than the modern glass screen.

When you have a product made from leftover rejected parts the supply is guaranteed to be limited.

So you hype it as "for a limited time" and people go hog wild with FOMO.

coming soon: "The Neo is Back."

That's a strong statement. Can you explain why that isn't also true of human brains? What's the intrinsic difference?

Yeah, "LLM's are gods" and "statistical ML networks are good at finding defective code patterns" are extremely different claims.

The people who are True Believers on both extremes look pretty silly.

I appreciate really good closed captioning while having no use for chatbots. Both ends get to call me a heretic!

Just watch the patches and CVE's trickling out.

It's not like OpenBSD is going to sit on a vulnerability for 90 days or whatever.

Issuing a patch doesn't give away the details about how it was found.

They have multiple documented patched zero days and provided sha3 verifiable hashes for ones that will be released in the next 135 days. Knowing Anthropic and their track record, it seems highly unlikely they're lying. This is a game changer to the security community. In the long term it should be great, but in the short term it is going to surface hundreds of thousands of vulnerabilities.

Seriously, this constant delivery scam has to stop. And, again, because some some people still do not get what is going on: Finding some vulnerabilities is an attacker skill and of relatively low value for defenders. The only thing that really counts for defenders is which vulnerabilities this thing does not find. Quite non-surprisingly, there is no information on that.

It almost always gives shit answers. Any time I search for details of things I know about it jumps in to tell me some shit I know is wrong. Every. Fucking. Time.

Oh look, moving the goalposts.

What a fucking clown.

Haha you think our votes are counted

Hah! rsilvergun saying stuff that isn't commie pabulum.

If you weren't so simple you'd know that my view is pro-business. But that would involve not mindlessly obeying your training.

To be fair I just wasted a week tracking down a radio telemetry problem because of a forum post that many people said worked great but it definitely pulled a pin high that was supposed to be low, which shut off an antenna.

Only diving into the spec sheet and some sample embedded code convinced me that the forum post was exactly wrong and after making a simple change to do the opposite did all the telemetry devices mesh up and start reporting correctly.

So ... how does 90% compare to human content?

A wrinkle is that everybody knows humans are flawed and too many people treaty the LLM as omniscient.

Why should anybody care if this drives electric bills up to $1000/mo for the typical household?

We have unlimited energy, no?

Dipshits aren't creating a global energy crisis right now.

The world economy isn't headed for a global depression.

Natgas should be burned for LLM hallucinations and cats driving motorcycles, not converted into fertilizer to stave off a massive African famine.

Western woke governments haven't spent the past fifty years blocking new energy generation at every opportunity.

Right?

Don't invite the guillotines, dudes.