That’s the BBC criticising Apple for indiscriminately mangling all notifications with AI, like news headlines. The BBC could boycott the Apple platform, but that’s basically their only lever to stop Apple doing this besides asking nicely.
Well read the BBC article on this then: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0elzk24dno
It’s an iPhone ‘feature’ that summarises a bunch of notifications into one. It took a set of BBC headlines and turned them into “Luigi Mangione shoots himself…” They don’t list the article that was being summarised so I don’t know what the original headline was.
I didn’t recognise the ‘10 seconds of human consideration’ claim. I found this ProPublica report on it: How Cigna Saves Millions by Having Its Doctors Reject Claims Without Reading Them
There a former Cigna doctor says “It takes all of 10 seconds to do 50 at a time.” They claim to have seen documents for a two month period that put the average at 1.2 seconds per review. That’s using a specific review system that processed 300,000 claims over that period.
They don’t mention if there were other claims processed with different methods but still, the OP article seemed to be generous with that claim.
I don’t know what the “90%-error-rate AI” claim is about though. It’d be nice if the sources were actually cited.
Yeah, they’re a burgers & spies joint.
Too right. They wanted to show off the design of the Apple I so much, they didn’t even put a case around it. It’s all about the aesthetics with Woz.
I expect (hope) it’s a small factor, but I wonder where pedestrian fatalities fit in. Several of the worst models seem to be large SUVs or sports cars - alongside these Teslas and some rather cheaper compact cars.
Go to the actual report. There is one table for the top fatalities by vehicle model and another for the top average fatalities by manufacturer.
As a note, it looks like the data they used is publicly available from the NHTSA. They mention that “models not in production as of the 2024 model year, and low-volume models were removed from further analysis.” I wonder where the Hummer and Rivian show up there since they are not mentioned in the report whatsoever.
Yeah the Rolling Stone article is written really weirdly. I don’t think it’s technically wrong anywhere but it reads really misleadingly when you compare it to the actual report.
Like it leads with “the group identified the Tesla Model S and Tesla Model Y as two of the most dangerous cars” - meaning they are in the list - at sixth and twenty first places respectively. The mix is really weird though. As you mention the top of the list is cars like the Chevy Corvette and Porsche 911, but also things like the Mitsubishi Mirage and a load of Kia models. So it seems like there’s a lot to interpret there.
Certainly it’s somewhat damning that despite the driver assistant technology, these models are not particularly safer. But I think other manufactures have a wide range of vehicles at different price points that also vary in safety, which brings their averages below Tesla’s in the final rankings.
They’re not converting it back into electricity, this is for industrial process heat. They have 100 units of electrical energy and 98 units go into whatever the industry needs to heat.
Lots of industries use ovens, kilns or furnaces. Mostly fueled by gas at the moment. Using electricity would be very expensive unless they can timeshift usage and get low spot prices. Since they need heat anyway, thermal storage is pretty cheap and efficient.
It’s heat though. They’re turning electricity into heat then moving that heat to where it’s needed, when it’s needed. Making heat from electricity is nearly 100% efficient, and pumping losses for moving fluids are going to be tiny compared to the the amount of heat they can move. They quote the heat loss in storage seperately as 1% per day. It seems reasonable.
Plus it did land on the barge. Most of the debris should be there, though the remaining fuel would have mainly gone overboard. Probably the flight termination explosives also.
I think what you want is in Firefox nightly right now: https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2024/08/07/firefox-sidebar-and-vertical-tabs-try-them-out-in-nightly-firefox-labs-131/
That expands and compacts based on the sidebar state and can be flipped to the right side of the window in the ‘customise sidebar’ settings.
1xx: hold on
2xx: here you go
3xx: go away
4xx: you fucked up
5xx: I fucked up
6xx: Google fucked up
I think you’d only have to read it once, then you should be able to just filter it out next time you see it.
- Sent from my iPhone
A balance has to be struck. The alternative isn’t not getting anything better, it’s being sure the benefits are worth the costs. The comment was “Why is [adding another decoder] a negative?” There is a cost to it, and while most people don’t think about this stuff, someone does.
The floppy code was destined to be removed from Linux because no one wanted to maintain it and it had such a small user base. Fortunately I think some people stepped up to look after it but that could have made preserving old software significantly harder.
If image formats get abandoned, browsers are going to face hard decisions as to whether to drop support. There has to be some push-back to over-proliferation of formats or we could be in a worse position than now, where there are only two or three viable browser alternatives that can keep up with the churn of web technologies.
I mean, the comic is even in the OP. The whole point is that AVIF is already out there, like it or not. I’m not happy about Google setting the standards but that has to be supported. Does JPEGXL cross the line where it’s really worth adding in addition to AVIF? It’s easy to yes when you’re not the one supporting it.
The full ten months of the year?