Because other people do, and those people previously would have CLAUDE.md files in their repos and not AGENTS.md files. When you have to work with them and their repos, you were forced to deal with the difference.
What a treasure Big Clive is. Educational, entertaining, and zero of those YouTube cliches and clickbait that everyone hates. I don't think he's ever said "Like and subscribe" literally ever.
macOS 15 should be getting security updates until at least the end of next year. I've been using it for ~2 years and I'll happily spend another year using it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that macOS 15 security updates are only made available for devices for which 15 is the last compatible macOS version.
That's not how it's worked in the past. They did security updates until three versions later released regardless of the hardware. What you may be thinking of is that there was some weirdness around Intel vs M series chips and how those got updates.
Parent is thinking iOS/iPadOS, not macOS. Older devices that are not capable of running iOS 26 are still receiving security updates for iOS 18, but any device supported by iOS 26 is not. It's a real hard push by Apple to get people to swallow Liquid Glass by withholding security updates.
No. Dishwasher rinse aid in beverages happened yesterday but I’ve also had makeup remover in condiments and various other fun ones. I have an iPhone 16 so it’s not like the hardware is terribly underpowered either. It may be dependent on regional settings or something but Siri shopping classification has been hilariously terrible for me. If I make a shopping list of 10 items there is always at least one that is wildly misclassified - I leave it on because it makes me laugh.
The other thing that has been terrible for me in 26 is they made some sort of change to the pronunciation in “maps” when it gives directions. It seems like they tried to make it clearer or something but it breaks loads of UK street names in hilarious ways. For example, there is a street near me called “Speldhurst road”. You would normally say this “spelled hirst” or similar. Siri? No. Siri says “Spellduster”. There are many like that. It’s kind of ridiculous.
There is a setting in the “Reminders” app where Siri will automatically categorize your reminders into certain categories. If you have a shopping list and you add chickpeas and red beans for example it might put them into a category of “pulses and grains”. I think the idea is you probably buy all the things in a particular category from the same kind of store (or the same section of a supermarket or whatever).
For me yesterday I needed to buy dishwasher rinse aid so when I added it to my shopping list siri put it into the “beverages” category, and when my wife on a different occasion asked me to buy some makeup remover for her siri put that into a “condiments” section.
I have not done anything (on purpose) to make the classification like this by mistraining it or whatever - it’s just been that bad out of the box.
Apple News does this too. In some ways it's actually worse. It's a real problem, and those who are less technologically ept are inevitably going to be scammed. I expect a lot more from Apple than I do from Google, so it's surprising that it's been going on for so long.
I find Apple News to be so frustrating. Even way I paid for the premium service, so much of the content was behind paywalls, and the ads are so pervasive that it was a truly awful experience.
I have to believe Tim Cook never actually tried to use it. I don’t know how any executive using that app could allow it out the door… not at a company that claims to pride themselves on providing a good user experience.
How would it have helped? Net neutrality doesn’t mean you can’t sell your customers different bandwidth guarantees.
Net neutrality is only about the connections between a provider and external networks, not about how a company handles bandwidth contention amongst its customers.
Net neutrality would fix a problem like “only Facebook is accessible inside crowded stadiums” not “AT&T customers who pay more get better connections in crowded stadiums”
Net neutrality as generally understood says nothing about being able to pay more for a higher service tier from your ISP.
It's entirely on the publisher side: net neutrality was an attempt to avoid ISPs getting paid extra---costs that would be passed onto you---in exchange for making your experience on site A be better than your experience with site B (or service, vs site).
Think: "Oh, yeah, Netflix 4k works great on your new Comcast plan! But if you want Hulu 4k, you're gonna need to pay us more, because Netflix pays us to make their shit work better than Hulu's if you don't!"
Net neutrality means that providers don't discriminate based on the kind of traffic, that you get internet access, not just access to particular services.
They can absolutely meter and limit your connection as long as one byte is one byte, no matter its origin. They can also discriminate based on the technology they provide (4G, 5G, fiber...). Net neutrality is not about preventing "pay to win", obviously, you can get a better connection if you pay more. It is about fair competition between online services.
People still believe this? Google pays their ISP. I pay my ISP. Google does not pay my ISP. Why is my ISP's response to the amount of traffic I use demanding to bill someone other than me?
To be clear, Google was doing this out of self-interest. Paying user ISPs for access to those users is not a cost they want to pay. But it's the same as any other protection racket. A local shopkeeper has personal reasons to not want to pay off the mob, but that doesn't mean their position is wrong.
ISP's spent $$$$$ against net-neutrality cause they wanted to get paid twice (Google already was paying for their side of the bandwidth as the source).
When you add the second line---pretending that that nobody funding all the anti-net-neutrality let-big-ISPs-do-what-they-want stories that pro-legacy-company Republicans ate up---it makes me think this is some astroturfing, since it goes from "maybe this person fell for the ISP claims" to straight-up dishonest intentionally-misleading-fallacy.
Google was obviously on the side of "don't get charged twice" but ultimately net-neutrality was a tech enthusiast consumer position that came out of a desire to avoid getting charged more on the basis of what sites you did or didn't want to watch, and ISP's trying to influence where you visited by cutting deals to get paid to prioritize A vs B.
(Hell, ISPs were already getting paid "twice" for the bandwidth in some ways, e.g. when your "100Mb" plan only works at that speeds if your neighbors aren't using it much. That's a different sort of incomplete-advertising trickery that helped create the whole "too many people using Youtube are saturating the network!" "problem" in the first place.)
(And high-bandwidth publishers already were making private peering/colo-of-servers deals with ISPs and CDNs that I don't believe would've been prohibited by net neutrality, so the 'protection racket' aspect of the ISP's game was maybe more arguably wanting to be paid thrice? Or wanting to be paid without providing that colo service?)
It breaks the social contract of the web. My user agent should be able to tell me where a hyperlink goes without first clicking on it, and perhaps act differently based on that information.
Now, all Google search results appear to go back to Google.
TBF this is more a browser problem than a website problem to my mind. Redirects shouldn't be handled in such a cavalier manner. I should be able to configure the browser to stop and confirm the destination any time the domain changes without direct user interaction.
If I learned that someone I've been speaking to for a while was recording the conversation using the audio recorder app on their phone, I'd find that extremely creepy.
In the video, the waitress said something, then the guy looked up on his watch what she said. Where's the part where he enables anything? Clearly it was already listening, otherwise it wouldn't have caught what she said.
I agree! And this is always recording. It remembers what people said and can produce a transcript of it; that's a record. The "hey siri" feature doesn't keep a record of what everyone said (except when it triggers incorrectly I guess).
If a Nissan commercial cuts right to someone cruising along a mountain road, would you assume that Nissans are always moving, never having to be started?
No, but I'm not sure what the point of this kind of feature would be if it isn't always listening. Do you usually plan out in advance when you're going to miss what someone said so that you can enable recording just for that?
Siri Recap records throughout the day without the user needing to constantly enable it. It provides AI summaries of conversations recorded including direct quotes.
Live Rewind shows an exact transcript of conversation but only of the 15 seconds immediately before the user activated it.
How is Live Rewind able to show a transcript of a conversation which happened before it was activated? That makes no sense, it needs to record stuff continuously in order to at any time tell you what was said 15 seconds ago
>Live Rewind, which can help users recall what was just said in conversation. A double press of the Digital Crown shows the previous 15 seconds of a conversation as a text snippet...Users can ask Siri about the content of the text or save it to the Siri app to revisit later.
Yeah so there's no input to activate recording, it always records what you're saying so that at any point in time, it can go back 15 seconds. When you double press the crown, it can't go back in time to start recording 15 seconds ago, it needs to have already recorded the last 15 seconds.
My hope is it’s off by default and most people choose to keep it that way.
This featuring is undoubtedly to compete with, and crush, all of those stand-alone AI wearables that do the same thing. All those products failed, because people either didn’t find it that useful, or the creep factor was too high.
I could see some scenarios where it might be useful. Being at a conference, for example, and having a summary of everything I heard in the various presentations. But at the same time, it feels like the people being recorded should have knowledge of, and give consent to, the recording.
What sucks is that if you've ever pushed back on the people that use those stupid AI recorders they'll insist they're not actually recording you, its just a transcript and summary, and somehow that's fine. I'm not looking forward to more people explaining that to me, especially hardcore Apple fans.
Yeah, I had this happen last time I went to the doctor… one of the last places I’d want it.
At least with the Apple one they talked about how it works and it’s not some random product off Amazon doing god knows what.
My dad is probably the most likely person in my life to use something like this. I could see him sending me the summary of our dinner conversation or something, which would be very weird and off-putting. He has been very concerned about his memory as he ages, so I could see him using something like this to help with age related memory issues.
The doctor is probably the best place for this technology so that you can actually talk to your doctor rather than your doctor half-paying attention while they try to input everything into their EMR system on the computer.
Wife is a nurse. They trialed this out where she works and it was seriously a horrible experience. She ended up spending more time fixing the output then just taking her short hand notes.
This is what I’m worried about. Not so much the time fixing it, as the “well, that’s good enough” even though it might have issue. Over time, those small errors that may have seemed trivial at the time could become more serious issues.
They're already doing that on reddit. Fanboyism is so dangerous. No one should be that emotionally invested in a corporation, it lets them get away with anything.
I think they gave us enough information to understand their legal strategy. They will argue that the watch has sufficient processing power to transcribe the text in real time, and a plain text transcript is not a recording.
It likely stretches the definitions compared to what most people who do not want to be recorded think the laws should prevent, but on the other hand at least it couldn’t be used as legal evidence. It sounds intended as a memory aid, where passing a transcript for gossip purposes will hopefully be met with automatic skepticism as something that isn’t authenticated in any way and could be made up entirely.
They probably spent enormous amounts of time weighing how much legal jeopardy it would create for their customers.
I can’t tell how California law treats e.g. hitting the little microphone icon on the iPhone with the notes app open (realtime live transcription w/no recording that I know of) versus the voice memo app (illegal without all-party consent, as it creates a recording).
The world’s fastest smartphone typist can do what the mic icon does. In, say, court, “look I typed this” & “look this was dictated” would seem to be just as trustworthy since either can be edited after the fact. And someone could type and say it was transcribed, or transcribe and say it was typed. Whereas the law doesn’t want us voice recording and having the actual (forensically provable? w/the right budget?) record, unless everyone agreed.
Contemporaneous notes are absolutely used in courts. That doesn't make these summaries illegal, but I can't see how they won't become evidence. They will be subject to discovery.
The main argument against them being good evidence is if they are not accurate and the public (i.e. the jury) knows that.
No, that part requires intent, where you have to turn it on with the button. It was in the demo.
Regardless, you'll be mortified if you search the app store for software or Amazon for hardware devices that do this! You can still pick up voice recorders at Staples, actually (I was surprised to see they still sell them, and they have weeks of recording time now, along with transcription software).
> Siri Recap runs only when you choose. You can turn on Siri Recap in the Watch app on iPhone. When you turn it on, you can set a schedule based on time and/or location (for example, "only at work" or "never at night"), or you can manually turn it on and off. Across all these options, you can always turn it on or off at any time from Control Center.
> Siri Recap and Live Rewind help jog your memory, not provide a detailed record. Siri Recap doesn't produce a transcript. It generates a brief, high-level summary — comparable to notes you might jot down after a conversation. Live Rewind shows a text snippet of what was just said in the last 15 seconds, so you can catch something you missed.
reply