chiisana
4o does perform web searches, give summaries from a couple of pages, and include the link to those pages when prompted properly.
However, as most people know, first couple results doesn’t always tell the full picture and further actual researches are required… but, most “AI assistant” (also including things like those voice assistants in speakers) users tends to take the first response as fact…
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Reducing ad spend on one platform, albeit often the elephant in the room for most companies’ online marketing department, isn’t going to reduce prices at the till. Companies will either reallocate the ad spend elsewhere, there by spamming more ads in front of everyone, or pocket the difference to pad their profit margin.
Google did not make RCS; RCS is made by GSM consortium as succession of SMS, Google extended it to add some extra features such as end to end encryption (but only when messages are routed through their servers).
China mandated 5G sold in China must support RCS, hence why Apple added support for this. Since Google is basically banned in China, you can pretty much bet RCS going into/out of China is going to be unencrypted.
So you’re basically stuck between getting inferior unencrypted messages, or routing everything through Google.
Avoid RCS like the plague.
Sure. But the capacitors in the devices do make a pop and the fragments/shrapnels from the damaged devices depart from their physical location at pace that I would not be comfortable with.
If I’m dealing with a spicy pillow situation, the technical definitions as to whether or not something counts as an explosion is the last of my concern.
Most portable electronics today use some variation of lithium ion batteries, which when it becomes unstable can combust/explode if mishandled. However, devices generally have thermal management software and hardware, as well as multitude of other safety mechanisms like power management systems to handle charge regulation. Unless you intentionally puncture your batteries, they’re not likely to cause any problems on their own.
It is easier to think of the SSL termination in legs.
- Client to Cloudflare; if you’re behind orange cloud, you get this for free, don’t turn orange cloud off unless you want to have direct exposure.
- Cloudflare to your sever; use their origin cert, this is easiest and secure. You can even get one made specific so your subdomains, or wildcard of your subdomain. Unless you have specific compliance needs, you shouldn’t need to turn this off, and you don’t need to roll your own cert.
- Your reverse proxy to your apps; honestly, it’s already on your machine, you can do self signed cert if it really bothers you, but at the end of the day, probably not worth the hassle.
If, however, you want to directly expose your service without orange cloud (running a game server on the same subdomain for example), then you’d disable the orange cloud and do Let’s Encrypt or deploy your own certificate on your reverse proxy.
Looking great! I think it would be amazing if there are filters for processor generations as well as form factor. Thanks for sharing this tool!
I did in fact read the paper before my reply. I’d recommend considering the participants pool — this is a very common problem in most academic research, but is very relevant given the argument you’re claiming — with vast majority of the participants being students (over 60% if memory serves; I’m on mobile currently and can’t go back to read easily) and most of which being undergraduate students with very limited exposure to actual dev work. They are then prompted to, quite literally as the first question, produce code for asymmetrical encryption and deception.
Seasoned developers know not to implement their own encryption because it is a very challenging space; this is similar to polling undergraduate students to conduct brain surgery and expect them to know what to look for.
Completely agree with you on the news vs science aspect. At the same time, it is worth considering that not all science researches are evergreen… I know this all too well; as a UX researcher in the late 2000s / early 2010s studying mobile UX/UI, most of the stuff our lab has done was basically irrelevant the year after they were published. Yet, the lab preserved and continues to conduct studies and add incremental knowledge to the field. At the pace generative AI/LLMs are progressing, studies against commercially available models in 2023 is largely irrelevant in the space we are in, and while updated studies are still important, I feel older articles doesn’t shine an appropriate light on the subject in this context.
A lot of words to say that despite the linked article being a scientific research, since the article is dropped here without context nor any leading discussion, it leans more towards the news spectrum, and gives off the impression that OP just want to leverage the headline to strike emotion and reinforce peoples’ believes on outdated information.
While I agree “they should be doing these studies continuously” point of view, I think the bigger red flag here is that with the advancements of AI, a study published in 2023 (meaning the experiment was done much earlier) is deeply irrelevant today in late 2024. It feels misleading and disingenuous to be sharing this today.
If anyone is responsible to keep things around for 100+ years, they’d have a job to do… and even then, cloud providers will still make their life significantly easier than juggling a bunch of storage mediums that goes in and out of storage medium fashion.