You dont seem to understand why people buy the most expensive phones. Most of the time (especially outside tech circles) its a show of wealth.
In a lot of ways the iphone has always been the Achilles Heel of the ultra wealthy, no matter how many billions you had, you could never do fancier than a 1500 buck iphone. Apple IMO is just trying to capitalize on this phenomenon and capture the pretentious luxury market. Anecdotally the galaxy fold did really well with the obnoxiously rich circles in my country, people who previously all had iphones. So they kinda have to do it as well now.
> Apple IMO is just trying to capitalize on this phenomenon and capture the pretentious luxury market.
Yes, that aligns with Apple offering their ridiculous golden watch faces and bands of $1000s for their Watch - it's all just about projecting wealth and 'success' (i.e. in these days of capitalism: mostly exploiting others and/or making them depended).
They're the same in this regard, and it’s insane that you think otherwise.
Asians might get the fame today with movies like "Crazy Rich Asians" but Americans have long been seen as the typical "flaunting wealth" conspicuous comsuptiom people by Europeans for example. In 2026 even the President has golden toilets and golden everything to flaunt his wealth.
Wild that you think he is not. He is clearly a product of a mindset and a large culture share, with a big cult following (way before he was a president) and he was voted into the highest office twice.
>Has HN really fallen this low?
With the ad-hominem rude rhetorical remarks you mean?
Seems to be it, though Im not particularly concerned about this problem personally.
The fact that we all readily accept that modern AI systems can likely solve any math problem that no living genius can, tells me that no task is beyond this system we just need the right harness around it. The exhaustion of meaningful math problems to motivate mathematicians minds seems to be the least of my worries at that point.
Inb4 someone suggests that this is not proof that these AIs generalize, I agree thats a popular opinion, but both sides are merely that, with no possible way to prove. I will wallow in my existential dread while you do whatever it is that gives you comfort.
Even with all of this nuance why would the regular joe go to muse when they have chatgpt and gemini? Most of their actual productive data is likely with Google anyway.
My understanding is that even if you opt out but then press thumbs down or give other feedback you are implicitly or explicitly or whatever giving permission to them to look at that chat alone.
I have opted out from data sharing, and when Claude asks me for feedback on a session it then asks if its OK to share that data with Anthropic.
I'd assume an opt out is an effective opt out. An opt out that is ignored by Anthropic is a breach of contract, not something they would do casually, esp. given the high turnaround and animosities between their own employees and ex-employees - and the labs. All it takes is one pissed off whistleblower to open a can of worms.
Occam's razor applies. The mathematician did not opt out from data sharing. OpenAI vacuums up all such data into training data sets. If OpenAI genuine does not easily know if a given session went into the actual training data set its probably due to the complexity of the data pipelines - not everything ends up impacting the model weights, after all.
Im now fascinated by how exactly Bcherny generated that message using claude. Like is the entire issue resolution automated, or still guided in someway?
They use a method called propensity score matching to try their best to match patients on both sides using a simple linear model with various features that try to ensure that only pairs of closely matched patient histories are compared.
Unfortunately this is rarely clean. Its also easy to make mistakes. Sometimes two arms are fundamentally incomparable. The quality and rigor of the comparison is often determined by a lot of extra checks and validations, and different journals demand different levels of rigor. I need to read it carefully to judge if this is good or not.
It looks like both do standard individual covariate checks for post-match balance, with SMDs. I'm surprised they haven't assessed balance for at least pairwise interactions, too -- we should be balancing out joint risk factors too, no?
I haven't worked on these designs, but I remember the methodologist that taught me this in grad school giving us a lecture about this.
EDIT: the BMJ article (laudably) provides access to the analyis code, although I won't have time to review it:
I always thought Im just not good enough to understand, hey Im just too dumb, surely there's people out there who understand what differentiates all these apache products! Nope never found one.
There are roughly 400 projects on that page; about 90 are in the attic, meaning formally retired. Another 25 are incubating, and some of those look like they’re already dead; nobody has checked the pulse and filled out the paperwork yet.
A huge chunk of Apache is Java libraries.
Some projects are just academia doing academia things; they graduate, the original people move on, and the project dies. Others are corporate donations, including the occasional “we don’t want to play with this anymore; maybe Apache can keep it alive” project.
That being said, the incubator graduation rate is still roughly 75–80%.
How useful or alive those graduates are five or ten years later is a different question.
Saying Apache is where software go to die is just wrong.
Yeah, the incubation projects. Do you not understand the difference between an incubation project and a TLP?
No conflicting vibes: 80% of projects survive the incubation, become TLP, and live a long life. How is that a hospice?
I only listed one way the undead project kept undead - "nobody has checked the pulse and filled out the paperwork yet." That was about _some_ of the 25 projects out of 400 projects. As for academia projects - some of them survive.
There is only one category that has a high mortality rate in Apache: government-donated projects.
What a crock of shite. Of course there's going to be some dead one when you have this many, but there are also projects that are foundational and many exciting new ones too:
In a lot of ways the iphone has always been the Achilles Heel of the ultra wealthy, no matter how many billions you had, you could never do fancier than a 1500 buck iphone. Apple IMO is just trying to capitalize on this phenomenon and capture the pretentious luxury market. Anecdotally the galaxy fold did really well with the obnoxiously rich circles in my country, people who previously all had iphones. So they kinda have to do it as well now.
reply