Hardware has been improving a lot since the low point of butterfly keyboards and no ports. Jony Ive went out the door and things improved. Then on the software side they course corrected recently after Alan Dye left. I have hope the software improvements will start to accellerate.
The ads show they are out of ideas and with everything enshitifying, and a duopoly, they don't need to serve customers. just be slightly less shitty than google.
This puts them at existential risk of disruption, because it will build huge unseen pressure for customers to flee.
We saw this with Opus 4.7 - 5, losing folks to Sol when it came out. But Anthropic delivered with 5.5
Heh. It's always funny how people like that don't see their irony of being "inclusive" of "all backgrounds" just after having made a long list of people who they will throw out immediately for vague transgressions that are based on rumors and innuendo.
Where's the irony? They are happy for anyone to be a part of their community, unless you are making other in their community feel unwelcome. It's spelled out in their code of conduct for you. If you're making innuendos that make other people feel unwelcome, you are not welcome
Because we know this entire moral panic is based on vague transgressions. The attacks on JK Rowling is the most obvious that everyone should be aware of. The cancellation of Jihad Rehab is another great example. If you want more I can supply a long list.
because once you attempt to start to apply any label it becomes more and more vague. If I am a black man from South Africa who hates white people for perpetuating the Apartheid, am I welcome or am I a racist? If I am a man who's own father transitioned to being a woman and I no longer feel comfortable around trans-people because I lost my 'father figure', am I a transphobe or am I welcome? I understand these are deliberately obtuse examples. I bring them up because I never know where on the spectrum the line is drawn for these labels yet people will gladly declare somebody a 'nazi' because their dad watches Fox News. Even asking the question "when does somebody on the right go far enough to be considered a fascist?" often is met with the retort "defending nazis makes you a nazi".
We both know what the 'answer' is because we are normal people who understand nuance - a skill many people have lost as they have come to have their ideals defined by their identity, not the other way around.
> Just because some people calling someone a nazi are wrong doesn't mean everyone calling someone a nazi is wrong.
Sometimes they aren't just wrong, they are the loudest.
True enough, but the likelihood that the person calling another person a Nazi is correct about the other person is so low that it’s much more likely they’re wrong rather than right. (This is true just statistically speaking.)
Absolutes are not usually very compelling nor very interesting, just as high improbabilities are usually neither compelling nor interesting.
"Strong opinions, loosely held" is an ideal worth striving for. The alternative is to hold on to things you should know better are false, aka dogmatism.
It's a bit more nuanced than that though. If someone breaks into your house and you ask the police to remove them you aren't a fascist. If Russia invades your country and you fight them for every inch, you aren't a fascist. If Romanis invade your city and threaten, assault, and rob your citizens and you remove them, you aren't a fascist.
The issue with the Romani is that they refuse to integrate. Or rather, the people we call the Romani are the people left after parts of their population DID integrate and now are just a part of society. It's selection really.
What do you do with a population like this that is actively belligerent? The Nazis solution was extermination, and I obviously think that's very immoral. Just letting them walk all over us is also immoral. Forced integration by breaking them up into individual families isolated from each other and performing cultural genocide? Also immoral.
This is a classic dilemma. There's no good option here. But pretending there isn't a dilemma is just fooling yourself.
This is just so silly. There's plenty of space left to go right of Robinson. He's not even advocating a christian theocracy, and there's plenty of people in the US that do.
Lying about your opponents just make them look good. We should all have learnt this lesson from the Trump fiasco.
There is no viable political party in the UK that is right-wing enough to be endorsed by Robinson. When the normie racist party (Reform) isn't racist enough so you have to go to the even more racist party (Restore) there might be an issue with your beliefs.
If you like his politics then good for you, no need to make things up about a country you don't understand.
> There is no viable political party in the UK that is right-wing enough to be endorsed by Robinson
Ok. And? This was not the statement I objected to. Just because there isn't a mainstream major party right of him, doesn't mean he's to the most right there is in the universe. Those are completely different things.
reply