E-ink is not "paper feel". It's a super low-power display, it only consumes power when the content on it changes. Since it works by moving around physical pigment molecules inside little cells, the screen will continue showing the last thing that you put on it literally forever while consuming no power.
I have an e-ink tablet, the Boox Note Air 3 C, when I use it as an ereader or notetaker the battery lasts for weeks. A little less when I use it for web browsing or apps that change the content on the screen a lot.
While E-ink is a large selling point of the Remarkable, I think parent is talking about another one of the selling points: That it feels like writing on paper with texture, rather than a glossy display (like iPad's display).
It has nothing to do with E-ink, but about how it feels to write on the Remarkable display with the pen.
Is that so certain? To be able to make claims for what you can use the output, can you do it without making any claims for about control and ownership of the output?
Of course, they can revoke your right to use the software, but if it goes to court, that would be interesting case.
If there’s no copyright in the weights to begin with, the only restrictions you have are the ones you agreed to when you accepted the license agreement. Find the weights somewhere else and you don’t have to worry about the license.
I don’t know why there isn’t more discussion on this point and people just assume there’s an underlying copyright basis to the licensing of weights. As far as I know that isn’t settled at all.
You can't add a contingency to a payment retroactively. It sounds like these are exit agreements, not employment agreements.
If it was "we'll give you shares/cash if you don't say anything bad about us", that's normal, kind of standard fare for exit agreements, it's why severance packages exist.
But if it is "we'll take away the shares that you already earned as part of your regular employment compensation unless you agree to not say anything bad about us", that's extortion.
Remember the point of a system prompt is to evoke desirable responses and behavior, not to provide the truth. If you tell a lot of llm chatbots "please please make sure you get it right, if I don't do X then I'll lose my job and I don't have savings, I might die", they often start performing better at whatever task you set.
Also, the difference between "uncopyrighted" and "permissively licensed in the creative commons" is nuance that is not necessary for most conversations and would be a waste of attention neurons.
<testing new explanatory metaphor>
Remember an LLM is just a language model, it says whatever comes next without thought or intent. There's no brain behind it that stores information and understands things. It's like your brain when you're in "train of thought" mode. You know when your mouth is on autopilot, saying things that make sense and connect to each other and are conversationally appropriate, but without deliberate intent behind them. And then eventually your conscious brain eventually checks in to try to reapply some intent you're like "wait what was I saying?" and you have to deliberatly stop your language-generation brain for a minute and think hard and remember what your point was supposed to be. That's what llms are, train-of-thought with no conductor.
I sincerely doubt that the New York Times as an institution is unaware of the fact that resurrection is a core tenet of Christianity. The BrietBlart-class right wing news media loves to make a big deal out of a hardly noticeable editorial mistake like the incorrect tense in an unimportant double-appositive clause.
Getting the difference between a Cathedral and a Basilica wrong is also not an example of "news media being anti-religion" because most religious people, including probably most American catholics, hardly know the difference since it's a piece of nomenclature that only matters if for some reason you've been charged with buying the right ceremonial hat for the guy in the back office.
Obviously they should correct it, because it's journalism's job to educate people, but I would stay far away from claiming it's any kind of institutional hostility to religion to make a typographical error or repeat a common misconception. Newspapers make these kinds of minor errors about all topics all the time: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/reader-center/corrections...
The purpose of most buildings is to be useful, not to look pretty in pictures.
> Modern architecture has destroyed our cities. It's hard to find a building build after WO2 that's actually pretty
That's because the things that get preserved are the things that are pretty. You think Romans built their outhouses and warehouses and cheap apartments to look like the colosseum? No, that shit was ugly too, that's why it's not around any more.
This is called "survivorship bias". Don't base your opinions of the past exclusively on the things that survived til now. The things that survived til now are, by definition, the exception to the norm from the time. Not every european building is a work of art, not every Lancaster Bomber avoided being shot in the engines, not all the dinosaurs were animated skeletons.
I know the economics must somehow make sense, but it's still hard to wrap my head around the fact that even with quite literally once-unimaginable computing power, semi-magical modern materials, structural theory, decades of recorded research and testing, international standardisation, leaps in simulations, optimisation, robotics, pneumatics, hydraulics, electronics, networking, transmission, logistics and supply chain engineering, economies of scale that dwarf the imagination of the most ardent technologist of yesteryear....humans still can't stack bricks or nail frames cheaply enough to reliably put roofs over heads.
Short answer to the riddle is: not enough demand to warrant investment (because you would need a long string of a few magnitudes bigger projects). Basically, the same structural problem that plagues nuclear power plant construction.
All those fancy technological advancements did almost nothing to the typical housing construction, it's still a lot of manual work, a lot of specialized tasks (site prep, foundation, frame/structural stuff, roof, insulation, plumbing, sewage, wiring, HVAC, connecting utilities), a ton of waiting, lots of logistics. An enormous amount of babysitting (project management) of the builders, because everything is basically custom/one-off.
There's a lot of costs that go into construction, the actual expense of putting together the parts to make the thing was at one time the biggest one, but not any more.
With all those new technologies that increase the efficiency of buildings and construction come technicians who expect to be paid well for their expertise, so for every manual job removed there's an expert who needs to be paid about as much or more to operate or plan the labor-saving technology so implementing the technology may not actually reduce the cost to the builder at all.
For the parts that do still require manual labor, that's been getting a lot more expensive and hard to find, because hand-in-hand with people specializing in all these fancy new technologies, the appetite for manual labor employment in developed economies has fallen, which pushes up the cost of the parts of construction that technologies hasn't changed.
Regulations and requirements have also massively proliferated in the last century. The number of inspections and approvals that any piece of construction needs is pretty crazy compared to the prewar era, plus new requirements and design limitations set by law that, while good for society (anti-fire, disability access), can sometimes drive up costs or limit design choices because ramps take more space than stairs and fire sprinklers represent a doubling of the amount of plumbing work you need to do.
Land has gotten progressively more expensive as it has become more scarce. Sprawl kinda reached the limit of what commuters are willing to tolerate in the 90s, so nobody can do cheap greenfill development anymore (anecdote, my parents had a new house built on the outskirts of Phoenix in 2006, with a 70 minute minimum driving commute, which I would absofuckinglutely never tolerate for myself): you need to buy more expensive interior land to redevelop. God help you if your local land use regulations require you to provide free parking, in which case you may be forbidden from building on as much as 2/3 of that very expensive land you just bought.
Because the footprint is so expensive, you don't have the cash to invest in quality without making the building too expensive for the people who are going to be using it.
And the footprint isn't the only thing that's more expensive, all the cool new technologies that your grandparent comment brought up are all more expensive to implement than structures without them. The existence of those technologies implies the existence of skilled professionals to plan and install them. It used to be that you just needed to pay your architect and engineer and builders, now you gotta also pay your crane operators and electricians and plumbers and acoustic consultants, and fire protection experts, and geologists, and network engineers, and energy consultants, and accessibility consultants too and they all want to be paid well for their expertise.
The proliferation of skilled professionals reduces the appetite in the population in general for unskilled manual labor, so that gets more scarce and expensive too. Gotta pay the builders well or else they'll quit and change careers to be one of those professional types.
Add to that the regulatory and compliance requirements that raises the floor of acceptable quality (building MUST be energy efficient, accessible, fire-safe, earthquake-safe, minimally ecologically impactful, etc etc etc) and your wiggle room for where to focus your "quality" budget is pretty tiny and exterior aesthetics rapidly sinks to the bottom of that list.
[disclaimer: I actually disagree with the people who say that new buildings are ugly. I actually like the modernist and international style aesthetics that are artistic declarations of raw functionality. My town has a brutalist city hall where the council chamber juts out in an overhang, so when you walk by you can look at it and say "that funky structural appendix is the exact room where people are making important decisions at this very moment" which I think is cool. This post-modern concert hall just opened a few blocks from me and I think it's pretty sexy: https://wysomusic.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2021-11... ]
bricks and wood are unable to maximize the quality of a limited footprint. an expensive plot of land in a city needs to be built to certain quality standards to make sure it is affordable and safe. this is only possible with steel and concrete.
brick and wood alone can't build safely and cheaply over 3 stories
Of course depending on the definition, but light-framed wood is good for around 5 stories. And mass timber (eg. CLT - cross-laminated timber) is good up to ~20. And for the foundation concrete is still needed. But a lighter one.
Can we? Construction is heavily impacted by cost disease.
My friend recently had a house built and the plot of land was around 15% of the cost of the entire project. The land in more premium location would still end up under 30% of total cost.
You're right, but there's a lot of people here making excuses predicated on treating entirely socially-voluntary problems (like providing no public transport, or allowing regulatory capture to inflate costs) as laws of nature.
>That's because the things that get preserved are the things that are pretty. You think Romans built their outhouses and warehouses and cheap apartments to look like the colosseum? No, that shit was ugly too, that's why it's not around any more. This is called "survivorship bias".
The interior of the small apartments in Pompeii are beautifully decorated, and at the very least more skillfully so than most medieval churches, and we are talking about a small run of the mill rural Italian town.
The reason Roman architecture is gone, is that the christians scrapped them for building materials to build churches, something that still happened until relatively recently (see the Temple of Ceasar pillaged in the late 15th century).
The Colosseum itself is a pretty bad example of architecture left intact, it's literally sawn-off in half.
> The purpose of most buildings is to be useful, not to look pretty in pictures.
Architecture is the only art where you're forced to participate. So we could pretty much say the opposite, buildings should, among other things, contribute to make a place nice. Or at least not make it more miserable.
> What do you think Barcelona is?
Most of Spanish cities are built with crap buildings dating above the 60s. Just concrete blocks, in some cities even with just plain grey and humidity stains. It doesn't matter how historic the city is, because the "historic center" it's just a small spot surrounded by uglyness.
> > Nothing compared the historic cities of Europe.
>What do you think Barcelona is?
Not historic. Well some of it is, there is a tiny small town core that dates back to Roman times. The vast majority of the city only dates back to the 1900s. They were just lucky that Gaudi and other great architects practiced then and built landmarks that really should be preserved for as long as we can. Don't make a mistake though, Gaudi and peers built the city we know in the 1900s which isn't very old.
I’ve done this arithmetic a few times now and I think you’re wrong: someone born the week after ww1 ended (November 1918) would have been 22 in November 1940, when the first draft registration was held for men who had reached 21. So there should be about 12 months of births in there.
I'm not able to reproduce the author's bad results in Kagi, at all. What I'm seeing when searching the same terms is fantastic in comparison. I don't know what went wrong there.
In the Youtube Downloader search, NortonSafeWeb is nowhere to be found. I get a couple of legit downloader websites, and some articles from reputable tech newspapers on how to use them or command line tools.
In the Adblock search, ublock Origin is #3, followed by some blogs about ad blocking ethics debates and the bullshit Google has been pulling recently.
In the wider tires grip search, #3 is a physics blog that dives deep into the topic.
In the transistors search, the first reddit link directly answers the question in very similar wording to the hypothetical correct answer spelled out in the rubric. 4/5 of the reddit results are on the correct topic, followed by two SuperUser questinos also on the correct topic, then some linus tech tips and toms hardware articles, also on the correct topic. No Quora questions.
In the vancouver winter snow search, the first several results are from local news papers talking about the anticipated effects of el nino on snowfall, and then a couple of high-quality blogs and weather sites.
Really wondering how Dan got such bad results.
------
Aside from that, the way that the author expects all the results to return the same kind of thing is just... weird? Like, that's not how search engines are supposed to work. A search that gives you 10 links to fundamentally the same thing is a bad search. Search results should cover a breadth of reasonable guesses for what you should be looking for given a query. If you search for "download firefox", and you scroll past the first 5 download links, then you're probably not actually looking for a download link and a blog post about firefox is not "irrelevant" and shouldn't be points against.
This opinion is even borne out in search engine quality metrics that have been industry-standard for decades, like mean reciprocal rank and distributed cumulative gain. What matters is how far you have to scroll to get to a good result, not what proportion of the first N results are good.
What region? I get similarly bad results with international (and a quick check with region US also didn’t improve things) and uBo at only #5, and ytdl at #12. And I already have github on "raise" and a bunch of domains blocked (not many though)
For the transistor query, it’s a very "googly" way of writing a query, when I saw the results I instantly felt like rewriting it and the first try gave much better results with "Why keep cpu transistors getting smaller?". Caveat that the results look better and more topical, I don’t know what a good answer would be, also why I didn’t evaluate the tires or Vancouver weather (I tried a local search for my cities weather, and while the first result was unreleated, the 2nd was okay)
edit: This whole thread made me finally create a file for documenting bad searches on Kagi. The issue for me is usually that they drop very important search terms from the query and give me unrelated results. But switching to verbatim or "forced terms" also prevents any kind of error correction of the search. This used to be one of my main annoyances with DDG back then, and Kagi did not have that issue during the early days.
I have a new Kagi account with no custom rankings and I see the same terrible results. Basically the same as what he describes. yt-dlp is not found at all, the 2010 link to youtube-dl, and a bunch of spam sites.
Same here, I was curious about Kagis low ranking, and couldn't replicate the search results. Also saw ublock Origin on #3, good results for tires, transitors and snow, etc. I've never used any of the Kagi search result weighing features.
Ctrl+F on the page for "System prompt" doesn't show any hits. Given how important those are for ChatGPT (another thought - was the author testing GPT3.5 or 4?) I'm not sure how much weight to put into the ChatGPT results either.
Not sure how much I can take away from this comparison.
I asked GPT-4 about Youtube Downloader and it rambled on about how downloading videos is against Youtube’s TOS and I should buy YouTube premium which has the download feature.
Getting any useful data from GPT-4 about anything even remotely “illegal” is a waste of time.
With a better prompt, you can get it to list some, but it’s very annoying to do so.
Mistral showed that their medium model is far better (yet not good), and the same prompt as in the article gives only one instead of 3 paragraphs of rambling about copyright, and then lists 3 categories of options with examples for each (not good, because ytdl is not one of those listed).
Funnily enough, both mistral and GPT4 apologize profoundly and almost with the same wording when asked "Why did you not mention the very popular, free and open source "youtube-dl" software?" and then mention how/where to get it and how to use it.
> Funnily enough, both mistral and GPT4 apologize profoundly and almost with the same wording when asked "Why did you not mention the very popular, free and open source "youtube-dl" software?"
Likely because they were optimized for general population, which would not have a use for command line python utility.
I’m clear why they didn’t include it, I wanted them to tell me why, though. And I thought that both of them apologized in almost the same way, was funny.
The author already alludes to the fact that you can probably prompt-engineer around this and indeed, as soon as I added a blurb like "these are my own videos that I own the copyright to" it did suggest a bunch of third-party tools and let me ask it about what third-party tools I could use.
It suggested '4K Video Downloader', 'YTD Video Downloader', 'JDownloader' and 'Clipgrab' at first and when I asked for cli tools it came with 'youtube-dl', 'yt-dlp', and 'ffmpeg'
Those seem pretty reasonable results to me but I'll readily admit I don't know (yet) if 'most users' would ask these follow-up questions.
I'll second the chorus of those curious to hear how you've customized the search engine. I was able to reproduce the lackluster results, and was sadly disappointed. I expected what you seem to have found, that Kagi would outperform.
A specific example: for "ad blocker" the first result was some paid ad blocker and ublock was down the page below the fold.
I use Kagi because I'm trying to remove Google from my life, but their text search is worse than Google in my experience, and the image search is abysmal. I'm wondering how long I can keep this up. I already revert to Google for image search, and am finding myself using either Google or ChatGPT over Kagi more and more for text as well.
It's already performing better on a (n=1) test I tried.
"Talos Principle 2". (Video game sequel) Previously (~5 days ago), Google returned various screenshots etc from the game `The Talos Principle 2`. Kagi returned mostly results from `The Talos Principle (1)`. Now the latest Kagi results are a mix, mostly from 2. So, it does look like it fixed this query.
I have an e-ink tablet, the Boox Note Air 3 C, when I use it as an ereader or notetaker the battery lasts for weeks. A little less when I use it for web browsing or apps that change the content on the screen a lot.