> You own the code your AI produces. Use your own name to commit AI code so that if something breaks, everyone blames you. This is critical. How well do you need to know the code your AI produces? Well enough that you can answer for its mistakes.
The in-ear HR is interesting. I wonder if Apple can make it accurate, e.g., Sennheiser Momentum are not very accurate[0]:
> Look, I’m not gonna waste your time – this thing is dumpster-fire inaccurate level in almost every realm of heart rate accuracy except for indoor cycling.
The hardware tech in place for HR is even more interesting.
"AirPods Pro 3 introduce a custom photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor that shines invisible infrared light pulsed at 256 times per second to measure light absorption in blood flow. Combined with sensor fusion from the AirPods Pro accelerometers, gyroscope, GPS, and a new on-device AI model on iPhone ..."
This same hardware, or its next iteration, will probably allow for silent speech recognition with a software update. This will be a total game-changer in terms of human-computer interactions.
Sadly, it'll be up to Apple to make this a reality since they don't expose the raw sensor data.
Apple wouldn't put in a medical sensor if it wasn't accurate, that's not their style and they know they'll get the most scrutiny (whereas nobody specifically has it in for Sennheiser, they're just one more brand among 100s).
If it wasn't yet up to par it would make it just give "warnings" instead of numbers (like the apnea and blood pressure measurements).
This is anicdata, but my watch is consistently 5-10bp higher than my clinically measured heart rate. Always and consistently. It's an actual issue for my health care that my doctor and I took some time to track down, and turns out Apple Watch is wrong.
The researchers had 24 healthy participants wear an Apple Watch Series 6—which is outfitted with the same blood oxygen reader as the newer Apple Watches—on their left wrist while placing the medical-grade reader on their left middle finger. The participants wore breathers that slightly reduced the oxygen they took in over a few different phases, and the researchers recorded the blood oxygen levels recorded by each device at 30-second intervals. The Apple Watch is very close to achieving accuracy levels of a pulse oximeter. The blood oxygen level (which is called SpO2 in the study) bias across all data points was 0 percent. Here’s the rest: “The bias for SpO2 less than 90% was 1.2%. The differences in individual measurements between the smartwatch and oximeter within 6% SpO2 can be expected for SpO2 readings 90%-100% and up to 8% for SpO2 readings less than 90%.”
Good marketing, but also possibly the start of the conversation on model welfare?
There are a lot of cynical comments here, but I think there are people at Anthropic who believe that at some point their models will develop consciousness and, naturally, they want to explore what that means.
If true, I think it’s interesting that there are people at Anthropic who are delusional enough to believe this and influential enough to alter the products.
To be honest, I think all of Anthropic’s weird “safety” research is an increasingly pathetic effort to sustain the idea that they’ve got something powerful in the kitchen when everyone knows this technology has plateaued.
I guess you don't know that top AI people, the kind everybody knows the name of, believe models becoming conscious is a very serious, even likely possibility.
Looks like we were unable to correct them over the last 3k years. What has changes in 2025 that you think we will succeed in correcting that behavior?
Not US based, Central/Eastern Europe: the selection to the teacher profession is negative, due to low salary compared to private sector; this means that the unproductive behaviors are likely going to increase. I'm not saying the AI is the solution here for low teacher salaries, but training is def not the right answer either, and it is a super simplistic argument: "just train them better".
>Looks like we were unable to correct them over the last 3k years.
What makes you say that?
>What has changes in 2025 that you think we will succeed in correcting that behavior?
60 years ago, corporal punishment was commonplace. Today it is absolutely forbidden. I don't think behaviors among professions need that much time to be changed. I'm sure you can point to behaviors commonplace 10 years ago that have changed in your workplace (for better or worse).
But I suppose your "answer" is 1) a culture more willing to hold professionals accountable instead of holding them as absolute authority and 2) surveillance footage to verify claims made against them. This goes back to Hammurabi: if you punish a bad behavior, many people will adjust.
>the selection to the teacher profession is negative, due to low salary compared to private sector; this means that the unproductive behaviors are likely going to increase.
I'm really holding back my urge to be sarcastic here. I'm trying really hard. But how do I say "well fund your teachers" in any nuanced way? You get what you pay for. A teacher in a classroom of broken windows will not shine inspiration on the next generation.
This isn't a knock on your culture: the US is at a point where a stabucks barista part-time is paid more than some schoolteachers.
>but training is def not the right answer either
I fail to see why not. "We've tried nothing and run out of ideas!", as a famous American saying. Tangible actions:
1) participate in your school board if you have one, be engaged with who is in charge of your education sectors. Voice your concerns with them, and likely any other town or city leaders since I'm sure the problem travels upstream to "we didn't get enough funding from the town"
2) if possible in your country, 100% get out and vote in local elections. The US does vote in part of its boards for school districts, and the turnout for these elections are pathetic. Getting you and a half dozen friends to a voting booth can in fact swing an election.
3) if there's any initiatives, do make sure to vote for funding for educational sectors. Or at least vote against any cuts to education.
4) in general, push for better labor laws. If a minimum wage needs to be higher, do that. Or job protections.
There are actions to take. They don't happen overnight. But we didn't get to this situation overnight either.
> This isn't a knock on your culture: the US is at a point where a stabucks barista part-time is paid more than some schoolteachers.
I don't think this is meaningfully true. I found a resource that shows the average teacher salary to be $72,030 [0]. The average starting salary is lower at $46,526, but a 40 hour workweek at $20 for a Starbucks barista tips-included is about $41k. Here in Massachusetts, the average teacher salary is $92,076. In Mississippi, it's $53,704. You can maybe find some full time (not part time) Starbucks baristas that make slightly more than starting teachers, but after a couple of years the teacher will pull ahead. However, since the higher paying Starbucks jobs are in places with higher costs of living, I would assume that the teacher pay would be higher in those places too, so it's a wash.
> "We've tried nothing and run out of ideas!", as a famous American saying.
Ironically Mississippi of all states has experimented by holding back more poor performing kids instead of letting them advance to the next grade, with some success in rising test scores: "Boston University researchers released a study this year comparing Mississippi students who were narrowly promoted to fourth grade to those who just missed the cutoff. It found that by sixth grade, those retained had substantial gains on English language arts scores compared with those who were promoted, especially among African-American and Hispanic students." [1].
This doesn't disprove what you're saying (and there are some caveats to the Mississippi experiment), but there is definitely low hanging fruit to improve the American teaching system. Just because teaching is a thousands year old profession doesn't mean modern day processes can't be improved by ways not involving salaries/direct training.
I'll admit "some schoolteacher" is doing some heavy lifting here. It shouldn't be that close to begin with when you remember that school teachers need extra license/acreddidation (so, more post secondary education whose costs run rampant) and arguably have a much more stressful job.
>there is definitely low hanging fruit to improve the American teaching system.
Sure, you can patch the window up and make sure it at least tries to protect from the elements. But we should properly fix it at some point too. How many of those kids would have not been held back if they had a proper instructor to begin with? Or an instructor that didn't need to quit midway into the school year in order to find a job that does pay rent?
I agree in principle, although specifically with slack this is problematic. With emails, wikis, repos, it's easy to index them, or share them with a search engine or LLM. Slack is a moving target; they have the Slack AI, but if you don't enable it, it's hard to just grab all messages from a channel or a thread (and god forbid, you have a channel with multiple relevant threads). A lot of clicks required.
I have found slack all but useless for retrieving knowledge.
People simply don’t read emails, and ignore documents.
I don’t miss emails. Wiki devolves into a mess after a couple of years. Sharepoint has poor accessibility as there’s this constant churning between the app space and the web space.
I really think if you want to get people to take a document seriously you have to present it and walk people through it. If you get feedback and integrate it then it has collective ownership and it’s more interesting than a soliloquy.
But according to the popular glib, and I would say incorrect interpretation of agile principles, documentation is considered wasteful.
that's a pretty indirect contribution. if we start to boycott companies because of what is done with the taxes they pay then there won't be many companies left to use or do business with.
The country has literally started the war and keeps killing people. Is it not enough to boycott any relationship with it, especially those from which it benefits financially?
as far as my observations go it's a little more complicated than russia started the war and apart from that life is not just about politics but also about mundane practicalities.
Only psychopath children: “I’m not bullying him, I’m just saying if he does anything I don’t want him to do I will bully him.”
Allegedly astute observers of European history: “Russia isn’t an aggressor, it just will aggress if its independent neighbors do anything Russia doesn’t like.”
sure, but that is sadly how world politics works. if the US expands nato right to the border of russia then they retaliate. ukraine fought a war against their own citizens in the eastern half when they sympathized with opening up to russia - a majority there perceives themselves as russians. this is not just whataboutism - if you don't fight for resources then you'll have to buy them for a very high price. and ukraine is very rich in resources. as is greenland.
Don’t give yourself credit for understanding the “much more complicated” picture of the invasion than what other people are identifying.
You’re right here saying that it’s a resource grab. That’s what everyone else identifies it as too. You don’t have a more “complicated” picture or a more complete one, just one that’s devoid of a moral imperative.
your explanation boils down to "russia is an aggressor and hence will aggress". i'm considering the context - so, my perspective is a little more complicated.
Like "the US expanding NATO" haha. No one is coerced into joining NATO, ya goofball.
Yes, dictators who express imperialist ambitions and who fashion themselves after former emperors tend to engage in empire building. Ooooo so complicated!
My position as a russian, if you want something (resources, gas pipeline, whatever) you make a better offer than the other guy. it is called diplomacy, such a new concept. You attack = you are unilaterally at fault.
I heard so many times how ukraine "invited the attack" by behaving in ways russia didn't like. Tbh I feel like anyone who says that is a potential domestic abuser.
While Kagi is not good enough for an advanced user I see no problem buying it for a tech illiterate relative. But that is assuming Kagi doesn't literally pay in some form to Yandex for using their search
Well, that changes things a bit. Glad I don't use it anymore... IMO their "pay to help us rank search results we get from other engines" is not great anyway.
Oh I know I have no hope of convincing them! But there are all sorts of less engaged people on here ready to be taken in by whatever slightly contrarian take they come across.
if it is a majority today, it is because those who had pro-Ukrainian views were killed or had to leave not to be killed. people have families and not always can just "move away" - that's why they are forced to get russian passports not to be killed
it has never been internal war in the east of Ukraine, and the full scale war there today is the proof.
And those who didn't applaud learned what "punitive psychiatry" means:
Refusing to bow to an occupier in Russia’s world labels you as “mentally ill.” Through forced diagnoses, drugging, and institutionalizing—even children—Russia’s modern occupation of Ukraine echoes a horrifying Soviet tactic: punitive psychiatry.
> sure, but that is sadly how world politics works. if the US expands nato right to the border of russia then they retaliate. ukraine fought a war against their own citizens in the eastern half when they sympathized with opening up to russia - a majority there perceives themselves as russians.
This is not some "nuanced view", but blatantly wrong Russian propaganda:
1. The notion of "the US expands NATO" is ridiculously wrong. In Central and Eastern Europe, getting into NATO is considered the holy grail of foreign policy. Since the end of the Cold War, it has been regarded as the top goal in foreign policy (along with the EU membership), because nobody wants to return to being unfree prisoners under Russian rule in severely stagnating dictatorships, from which European nations broke free only 35 years ago.
2. I stress: Central and Eastern Europe passionately wants into the pact that would help to defend them in case of another Russian invasion. Sweden even abandoned its 200 years of neutrality and entered the pact. Trying to depict this as some kind of American initiative is plain wrong.
3. Existing members had refused to invite Ukraine into NATO in 2008 and the topic of Ukraine's entry into NATO was completely off the table by the time of Russian invasion in 2014.
4. There was no "war against their own citizens" in Eastern Ukraine. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the entire thing was a covert Russian special operation, directly under Russian military command. Their verdict is long and gives a really good overview.
The entire war is about as complicated as the invasion of Poland and France. Just plain naked aggression by a totalitarian dictatorship that first crushed all internal opposition, then turned outwardly expansionist. History has seen many such examples.
> if the US expands nato right to the border of russia then they retaliate.
US didn't expand NATO, those countries begged and pleased and threatened to get in and the US and other NATO countries finally threw up their hands and said fine. Note they didn't build any bases there or station significant amount of troops there.
> ukraine fought a war against their own citizens in the eastern half
To portray any part of the Ukranian war as a civil war even 2014-2021 is wrong. Ukraine fought Russia. At most there were a handful of far right and criminals who were willing to fight their own country. Girkin the FSB agent who took the first steps in the war admitted that if it hadn't been for Russia Ukraine would just have arrested the handful of troublemakers.
> when they sympathized with opening up to russia
I feel like you don't know very much about Immigration or business between Ukraine and Russia before Russia invaded, things were pretty open. It's that Russia ruined it by invading.
> a majority there perceives themselves as russians.
If you don't know the demographics or identities of Ukraine then please don't make stuff up. The majority considered themselves ethnically Ukranian in almost all parts of eastern Ukraine including Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. And of course ethnicity isn't politics there are shit ton of soldiers politicians and ordinary Ukranian citizens of russian origin supporting their country. The head commander of Ukraine is an ethnic Russian who moved to Ukraine as a teenager and still has family there.
> this is not just whataboutism - if you don't fight for resources then you'll have to buy them for a very high price. and ukraine is very rich in resources.
Russia has many more resources.
Granted this war has been built on idiocy but invading Ukraine for resources makes no sense considering how much it would have business/expenses it would have cost even if Russia could have won
> as is greenland.
Greenland is militarily useful because of its location. It already has a US base so the status quo is good for the US
The problem with people who claim the Russian war on Ukraine is more complicated is that they dont seem interested in the actual complexity as opposed to the Russian propaganda.
They do not. Also, the ads are sponsored follow-ups. Maybe someday they will be more blatant, but for now at least, they are easily ignored. I almost never use the canned follow-ups.
