The questions in my mind are:

1. Can OpenAI figure out a way to get $10/month worth of ad revenue out of ChatGPT users?

2. Will ChatGPT users be willing to pay $10/month?

They only need one of those answers to be yes, of course. If it’s broadly ”no” (which I suspect), I don’t think google has anything to worry about yet.

I’m basing that figure on both OpenAI’s API pricing, and Copilot’s pricing (which I’m suspicious Microsoft is actually taking a loss on right now). Right now, they’re giving it away for free to collect usage data, but that isn’t going to be worth it to them forever. Sooner rather than later, they have to figure out how to monetize this thing, because it is not cheap to run.

I understand why they built their own editor and code completion tool based on Codex, since they wanted to be able to collect detailed data about the editing sessions, but I think doing so raises serious questions about the applicability of their results. They’re ignoring all of the UX design of a real code assistant and focusing only on the underlying model.

For example, including temperature control in the UI is just stacking the cards against the AI group. No sanely designed AI assistant would draw attention to that parameter, and there’s not much reason for it to be user configurable at all. It would be like if you were testing how well drivers performed in cars with the radio on, and you put a big dial in front of the radio group for controlling antenna position. You’re just encouraging them to waste effort on something they don’t know how to adjust properly.

Yeah, it’s been something over the last few months to watch people suddenly learn that AI is an actual thing and not just a marketing buzzword. Like yeah, dudes, if you were paying attention, things have been getting extremely wild for years now.

If you live in SF, it would get you a handful of round trips. If you live a bit further down the peninsula, where the housing prices are merely outrageous rather than inconceivable, $200 will cover at most two round trips.

The styles I got for female were "Fantasy", "Fairy Princess", "Focus", "Stylish", "Pop", "Anime", "Light", "Kawaii", "Iridescent", and "Cosmic". I don't know what the male and "other" ones are.

But the effect of that setting goes beyond the style. I got a few images that look roughly like me, a bunch that look nothing like me (I think that's just standard), and then a significant number that looked like you artfully turned down the slider on every feature I feel self-conscious about. That last category was the one that really fucked with my head, although I will say that after a day or so, I feel a lot more comfortable with these images.

Just a PSA if you’re trans and that “pick your gender” thing sounds intriguing: be ready for a more complicated emotional impact than you might expect. I’m not saying not to do it, but make sure you’re in a good place first. The mix of gender dysphoria and euphoria I felt from seeing some of my images was a lot more than I was prepared for. YMMV, but at least know that there’s a risk. I had to lie down for a while.

Edit: I wonder what was going through of the heads of the people who downvoted this and made it controversial. Is it just transphobia? I'm trying to look out for other trans folks and help them make sure they're not stepping into an emotional experience they're not prepared for. What about that makes someone think "I'm gonna downvote this"?

Do people not know that these headlines are linked to articles, which you can read and learn more detail from?

The only way to deal with a Gish gallop is to start picking out claims randomly. So:

> Each wind turbine contains about 5kg of SF6, which, if released into the atmosphere, would add the equivalent of about 117 tonnes of CO2. This is about the same as the annual emissions of 25 cars

Never mind the fact that the article you link mentions that wind farms are now being built that phase out SF6. Let’s just look at scale.

Conservatively, the average electric car needs 5000 kWh per year to run. An average wind turbine produces 843,000 kWh per month. So the turbine pays off those 25 car-years worth of emissions in under 5 days

Of course I didn't read it. My time has worth, and I have very little reason to believe that that post does.

It would help if you had credible sources backing up the specific claims you want to work with, and not a link to a fifteen page self-post ramble.

The end of the joke is “Don’t worry, they’ll tell you.”

How do you know if someone is a meat eater?

Also for a 30 year payback at that price, they'd have to be paying like what? Three cents per kWh for grid power?

They have come down in cost rapidly, and don’t seem to have stopped. The cost per watt is about a fifth of what it was a decade ago, and we’ve blown way ahead of forecasts from that period. Also 30 year payback time? That’s extremely atypical from my own research into this.

Yeah, the original post is a great read, but this digest is so confused. What’s actually going on is that there’s a rarely used behavior in x86 dating back from the 8080. Rosetta 2 needs to support it for the rare cases, and it does so by having undocumented hardware emulation for the feature in the M1.

The clever bit is that the extension that does that emulation is undocumented, so once Rosetta 2 is deprecated, Apple Silicon can finally cast off this decades old backwards compatibility cruft.

Edit: to clarify, it’s actually two features, but the situation with each is virtually identical; some stuff you don’t care about gets calculated as a side effect of every add/subtract/compare.

> But will passengers be willing to board them?

Is that a serious question? Passengers are willing to be packed in like sardines in poorly upholstered seats with shards of metal poking into their backs to save a few bucks on a plane ticket. They’re not going to balk because it looks like a spaceship.

Sure, they’re playing favorites with the tech they’ve invested in and backed. The point is that the JPEG-XL situation is the normal case.

If the principal leans on a teacher and they give a passing grade to the star football player so he remains in good academic standing, but then the teacher fails another student who has a similar performance, there’s nothing baffling about either case, and certainly not about the student the teacher failed. The favoritism is bad, but the fact that they failed the one student is the normal situation.

The specific wording is:

> There is not enough interest from the entire ecosystem to continue experimenting with JPEG XL

I think what they mean is that other browsers weren't moving to support it (no Safari support, and Firefox support only in nightlies, afaict).

This really doesn't seem that baffling to me. At the very least least, I don't have to speculate very far to make it seem anything other than mundane.

For example, suppose one engineer took this support on as their pet project, and now they've moved on to other things (pretty typical at Google, from what I understand). Image decoders are complicated, highly optimized code, so they're ripe for security flaws and have to be actively maintained. So you've got a possible attack vector with no maintainer, which nobody is actually using (because it's behind a flag), and no new movement on it becoming a de facto web standard. And of course, the spec is right there (as is the old code), so if that situation changes, you can just put it back and actually dedicate resources to it. That all sounds like business as usual in the software industry.

That has nothing to do with webp specifically. It’s just a typical transition pain for a new format.

That's a very different claim from "solving a problem that doesn't exist." And the problem with all of your "how about" whatevers is that we've seen for decades now that many cities are not solving these problems, and there's very little sign that that's going to change any time soon. And not simply because people are stubborn, but because tons of actual practical challenges are intertwined with the political gridlock.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the planet is falling apart right now. We don't have the luxury of waiting for a thousand broken city governments to get their shit together and solve their transportation problems. Even if things like this are only intermediate solutions, if they help, that's a good thing.

> There seems to be a lot of negativity about these but I actually see a lot of uses if they work as advertised.

Hey, this is r/technology, where everyone inexplicably hates all new technology and jockeys to find the best reason to shit on any new idea. Cautious optimism has no place here.

I actually found it encouraging that they called that out specifically, though, because it’s actually one of the more dangerous cases for smaller wheeled vehicles. Deep gravel will make my scooter useless, for example, but big cracks have flipped me forward and over the handlebars more than once.

> The shoes solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Huh? Do bikes solve a problem that doesn’t exist? It seems obvious to me that the shoes solve the problem of being able to walk to places that are too far away to be convenient to walk under normal circumstances, and which aren’t designed for bikeability.

I used to have about two hours of walking each day between home, train stations, and work. The choices were that, ride a bike or scooter on busy San Francisco streets, illegally ride a scooter on the sidewalk, or Uber. Some days I’d be exhausted enough to do that last one, which was terrible for the environment.

If, and this key, but if they have a mode of quick transportation that is both convenient to carry around and safe to use on sidewalks, that’s huge for areas where bikes are for people with a death wish.

MacBooks already have USB-C charging, iPads are moving to USB-C with new models anyway, and it’s not going to make any sense to continue using a different cable just for AirPods.