Apparently they've declared a code red, because competition has got so hot. They're definitely going to do ads, but they may have to put it off. They can't afford ads at the moment ironically.
You can easily reduce the cost of coffee and drink much better coffee. A relatively inexpensive home setup can easily get you to $.75-.50/cup and that's using good beans.
Love his channel in general. I actually tried something similar and attended team meetings while sitting in a private jet in VR in Microsoft Flight Simulator. It was such a cool experience and totally immersive. Especially pulling up pinned windows for the work like a laptop on a plane.
There is something to be said for a change in scenery to somewhere stunning. Staring off somewhere beautiful while listening to what people are saying actually helped me stay focused on the content of the meeting.
Hopefully the mobile version of AI Studio gets some improvement. There are some pretty awful UI bugs that make it really difficult to use in a mobile first manner.
Though I still managed to vibe code an app using nanobanana. Now I just need to sort API billing with it so I can actually use my app.
Palantir isn't collecting it, they are storing it and processing it after it has been collected by ICE.
Their defacto scan everyone isn't to determine citizenship, it is to collect the data in the first place. They want to get as much data into their system as possible.
This. The fact that democracy is up against an extremely organized, centralized, and well resourced effort decades in the making with seemingly nothing comparable to combat it has those opposing this on completely reactive footing.
It is hard to see how a reactive group can come out on top in such a case.
The problem is we got rid of "democracy" a long time ago.
The original premise was you have a lot of elected officials and then they act as checks and balances on one another. So, for example, to pass a law against something it has to be voted on by the House (elected officials), and the Senate (originally elected by state legislatures, giving the states, an independent elected body, a voice in the federal government; not anymore) and then signed by the President (another elected official), and then as a final check it had to be upheld by the courts (elected by the President and Senate for lifetime terms).
Then we effectively replaced most of that with administrative bureaucrats that act only within the executive branch. They're not only not directly elected, they're not even indirectly elected by the Senate; the President appoints them -- or they're hired by other unelected bureaucrats -- and then they tend to stick around between administrations because there are so many of them that you can't plausibly replace millions of people every time the constituents want to change who is in office.
Meanwhile they make the rules and enforce them and bypass the courts through coercive plea bargaining. But we call an attack on this system an attack on democracy?
This behavior should be an early warning sign of future potential enshitification and a reason to consider open weight models you can host elsewhere.
If you are building on models that could disappear tomorrow when a company needs to juice the launch of a new model (or increase prices), you are introducing avoidable risk.
Doesn't matter at all if the newer model is earth-shatteringly good (and this one doesn't seem to be): If I can't reliably access the models I've built my tooling on top of... I'm very unhappy.
If this note is just intended for the GUI chat interface they provide - Fine. I don't love it, but I get it.
But if the older models start disappearing from the paid API surfaces (ex - I can no longer get to a precise snapshot through something like "gpt-4o-2024-08-06" or "gpt-3.5-turbo-1106") then this is a great reason to abandon OpenAI entirely as a platform.
Eh, depending on the stress of the work, how much I enjoyed it, etc, $250M can buy a lot of convenience in life that lets you do it for as long as you want and that can be truly transformational generational wealth.
reply