I wouldn't be surprised to see new products from OpenAI targeted specifically at doctors and/or lawyers. Forbidding them from using the regular ChatGPT with legal terms would be a good way to do price discrimination.
Definitely. And in the long run, that is the only way those occupations can operate. From that point, you are locked in to an AI dependency to operate.
Read their paper on GDPval (https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04374). In section 3, it's quite clear that their marketing strategy is now "to cooperate with professionals" and augment them. (Which does not rule out replacing them later, when the regulatory situation is more appropriate, like AGI is already a well-accepted fact, if ever.) But this will take a lot of time and local presence which they do not have.
Can it become a proxy for AI companies to collect patient data and medical history or "train" on the data and sell that as a service to insurance companies.
There's HIPAA but AI firms have ignored copyright laws, so ignoring HIPAA or making consent mandatory is not a big leap from there.
Now that Google has agreed to better support third party stores worldwide in the Epic settlement, the writing is on the wall. It's only a matter of time before Apple is forced to support third party stores in the US and I predict they will change their policy worldwide at that time.
Maybe another solid gold statue to the administration could make that pesky lawsuit go away, though. I'm hoping that shift doesn't come into effect until 2028 to avoid it being mangled or declawed entirely.
> The parties have identified reasonable, neutral criteria that third-party stores would need to meet to qualify as “Registered App Stores,” and the parties have agreed on the streamlined installation flow that would apply to Registered App Stores and apps from such stores
So no distributing apps from a store without Google's stamp of approval. This doesn't sound like it is going to address Google's new requirement for all Android developers to register with them before being allowed to distribute apps.
> In addition, the Proposed Modified Injunction specifies certain maximum fees that Google would be allowed to charge—for what Google contends are the valuable services provided by the Google Play store—on transactions in Play-distributed apps that use alternative payment options (either 9% or 20%, depending on the type of transaction)
So you're still required to pay Google fees for in-app purchases if the app is downloaded from the Play Store, even if Google isn't processing the payments.
It'll be good to have third party stores available globally, and it's better than what Apple's doing for sure, but the developer registration requirements coming soon are still a step backwards, and those unjustified middleman fees are still going to suck.
All I want is health insurance with low premiums, freedom to choose my providers, and a $50k deductible. Like, actual insurance for catastrophic risks. What we have now should not properly be called insurance. It's more like a mandatory membership in an extremely expensive and dysfunctional club.
Do you mean a life-time $50k? Otherwise an annual deductible of $50k sounds ludicrous. Maybe if they tied it to yearly income, it would make more sense.
@modeless is essentially arguing for self-insurance, which is perfectly sensible. You don't need insurance for things you can plan for, or have savings for (make sure you're analyzing your total financial tail risk).
Dental "insurance" is basically a savings plan with a negative return, considering the low lifetime maximums, and the fact that biannual cleanings aren't that expensive out of pocket. I have a $20k deductible (with lower premiums), and I'm coming out ahead. There's societal side benefit that paying with your own money makes you a more discriminating consumer.
The $50K is not outrageous, assuming you have the savings to cover it. You need insurance for the big things, which is basically anything more than a two-day stay in a hospital. The costs blow up from there.
I frequently find that my data service is completely broken even when I have full 5G bars. Inflating by one is lame but doesn't explain this behavior. Is this a T-Mobile thing or is it widespread these days? I don't remember it happening so much 3+ years ago.
Signal strength is a measure of how proximate you are to the tower in terms of radio connectivity, but it says nothing about whether or not the tower will respond to you in a timely fashion, the tower backhaul capacity, etc. Usually this happens because you have a great connection to the tower in theory, but in-practice you can't get meaningful bandwidth and everything appears broken. This is really common at sporting events and other large crowd gatherings, which is also why a lot of the promise of 5G was that increased work with OFDMA in trying to service more customers in the same physical space adequately.
It's probably a reasonable pitch to say that phones should instead display something closer to "meaningful available bandwidth" crossed with strength, because a strong signal doesn't mean a good connection.
Maybe related to 5G? There are a couple spots near me (in particular, a somewhat crowded open mall) where I have solid bars but zero connectivity. Dropping to 4G works in most cases.
Coming from being a Windows power user for decades, Mint just felt like more of a natural shift for my daily driving than Ubuntu. I wonder if that's a common opinion or if there's another driver.
The survey only shows Ubuntu 24.04.3 LTS and Ubuntu Core 22 for 8.25% vs Mint's 22.1 and 22.2 at 9.21%. There's a whole 18.04% hiding in the "Other" category that I suspect contains a lot of other Ubuntu interim and older LTS releases.
The hard part is never installing an Arch-like distro, it's making it past 5 sudo pacman -syu iterations without an AUR package going thermonuclear and requiring 45,000 pinned dependencies.
His engines are open source, and graphics are far from the only interesting thing about them. If you don't know what he's done that's on you; it's no secret.
reply