> Same thing as using a word processor and printer rather than handwriting a note. Inexcusable.
There is no confusion, when in receipt of something written using a word processor, that it was so written, and people are free to respond accordingly (though, of course, most of us don't care). There is no such certainty with products generated by AI, so it is appropriate responsibly to disclose it.
> To the extent the author’s point relies on the incorrect definition, it cannot be consistent or correct.
I don't think that a point based on an incorrect definition is automatically inconsistent or itself incorrect. It might be, of course, or it might just be insufficiently justified. And, to the extent that it is a philosophical point rather than a historical one, the truth or falsity of a philosophical claim doesn't depend on whether someone actually said it, or it is a mistranslation of something someone actually said.
In case they hallucinate? There's no point having content in a wide variety of languages if it's unpredictably different from the original-language content.
As a very simple example, airdrop to macOS with multiple logged in users will frequently pop up the confirmation notification in the user account that is not active.
I wonder if this was a design choice, so if I’m on the computer and a call comes in for them, I can let them know and maybe hand it off?
The alternative would be they would have to answer on their phone (assuming they have an iPhone, which may not always be the case), then use handoff to get it on the Mac.
Perhaps I don't understand it but the encryption security model for MacOS/iPadOS/iOS currently doesn't allow multiple different encryption keys for each user. So any user can decrypt the whole drive and while it does enforce user permissions, the security model can't support true multiuser.
I actually don't know if Windows or ChromeOS support this either but this is certainly something Linux can with LUKS et. al.
Non-admins getting prompts for system and app upgrades is mildly annoying. The bigger one in a family setting is the clunky sharing. There's no good way to share a photo library or music library between users. The Unix version of making a folder shared by a group doesn't usually work for Apple apps.
Switching users while changing displays often results in an incorrect resolution. That’s such a basic thing: different users have different preferences for their displays and keyboards attached to the displays. Yet this doesn’t work reliably, as if during some moments the login window just doesn’t want to adjust resolutions.
As soon as I added a 2nd user, my Samba share totally broke and days later I still don't have it working. It was fine for over a year and now I'm close to deleting my 2nd user just so I can access my Mac Mini across the network again.
> Give x < y, it's easy to construct x + (y-x)(sqrt(2))/2.
That's only obviously irrational if x and y are rational. (But maybe you meant that, given an arbitrary interval a < b, you first shrink it to a rational interval a < x < y < b?)
The original title made clear that this was about sizing for women's clothes. I'm not sure why that was removed; it wasn't clickbaity, and made the title more informative. In fact, I'd argue that just "Sizing chaos" is more clickbaity. (The article itself doesn't seem to have an official title.)
The url includes "womens-sizing" but I don't see that phrase on the page when I view it. "Sizing chaos" is the HTML doc title which is a legit option HN titles (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). That's why we went with that one.
For potentially interesting context, I notice in inspecting past articles that the pudding site regularly uses three different titles between the homepage, the article html title, and the title in-page (if any). In this article’s case, the homepage subtitle is much better than either of the other options:
> The inter-generational struggle to find clothes that fit more than a tiny portion of women
But I’m not sure if that’s a better title for HN or not. I sure like it, though.
There is no confusion, when in receipt of something written using a word processor, that it was so written, and people are free to respond accordingly (though, of course, most of us don't care). There is no such certainty with products generated by AI, so it is appropriate responsibly to disclose it.
reply