The wording sounds like this is a problem or even something to solve. Why?
But let's start with the basics:
- Why are these people not countable? Shoudn't we not at least just be able to get a good statistical number on this? We do the same for all people on (and off) this planet.
- Let's assume we have a number: how to we know that they sit and are alone and every day? This sounds to me like an overspecific approach.
- Why would anyone join local groups? You normally can't find people you want to interact with within a specific range, that's the great thing about social media or the internet overall: you don't need to be in a geographic range.
And the last one: what are you trying to solve here?
It’s either redacted or not. There is no "bad". The text is either there or it isn’t, sorry but this is a binary option and not on a spectrum from bad to good.
Maybe “attempted” would be more accurate? I personally don’t mind the “bad”, I get what is meant by it.
But since we’re talking about accuracy: I don’t agree on redactions being binary. You can redact with a pen that under certain lighting still reveals the text; you can redact parts that are easy to reconstruct when you have additional information; you can redact with a pen color that over time loses its function; etc. The “perfect” redaction would perhaps leave no clues as to even how much text was redacted? It seems to depend on the goal and context of the redaction, whether it achieves its purpose or not.
I still think that the word redacted is meant to destroy the original text, it might not remove the metadata (e.g. length).
Redaction is done mostly in ways with a possibility to reveal the underlying text, but all this is not redacted in my understanding of the word. I always liked the english word for this – the german word "schwärzen" just means to "blacken" the text and this was never the same for me.
But after further research I must agree with you, it just means to obscure or remove, but not clearly just remove. I have been using it for years in a stronger meaning that it's really meant.
One more but: we hopefully can all agree that putting a black bar over some text which still is just copy/pasteable is not even obscuring.
I've been in the enterprise sector for over 20 years, seen everything, started as Linux guy, now project lead, also started with AI. I'm doing mainly contracting within the EU, but I'm open for everything.
Ah yes, we haven't spent as much effort on it as we could. Mostly been building the product itself!
Pricing is still to be determined. I imagine we will charge for infra usage (processing, storage, etc) in line with other providers like Supabase. We will also charge per-seat for developing inside Specific, which will likely be a fixed price with some token usage limit.
As for what's part of the beta, we currently offer hosting for the API and processing of requests, as well as a database to back it. We are planning on expanding that to support more use cases like background jobs, cron jobs, and object storage.
We don't offer built-in authentication and aren't planning to at this point. That's because we think there are much better providers (like Auth0, Clerk, WorkOS) that you can easily integrate in your Specific app by just specifying it!
That's the main difference to something like Supabase. We provide the infra automatically for your app to do what you need it to, but aren't opinionated around user-facing aspects like authentication. We also have the opportunity to be quite a bit more flexible. Building integrations with external APIs on Supabase for example often requires writing edge functions. In Specific, you can simply make it part of your specification.
Why is every second article about this claiming that it’s automatic? It needs to be turned on or at least there was no mention of automatic in the original blog post.
I really hope that we can continue training AI the same way we train humans – basically for free.
I don’t think one is still „old“ if they died. The oldest person is normally the oldest person alive and that’s the opposite of dead.
So, no: there is still an oldest person. It just switched to someone else, happens all the time. It’s a bit more apparent with the youngest person, everyone was the youngest person at birth - at least for a short amount of time and then it switched to the next one.
reply