Is the person best known for exploiting security vulnerabilities to get into places you'd rather they didn't, and then getting lost and taking forever to get places the ideal namesake for your AI workspace project?
Out of all the homeric heroes, the main characters are just one tragic flaw after another. Odysseus is pathologically distrustful, Achilles is a diva that throws temper tantrums.
You gotta pick a dude like Sarpedon who just was a swell guy poking holes in greeks with his spear until he gets killed by Patroclus and everyone is sad.
I'm rereading the Iliad right now and was just reflecting on the fact the first time you see Odysseus at work he's selling two incompatible flavors of bullshit to officers and their men, in service of a third flavor of bullshit that was decided upon in advance at a war council.
I can think of worse. Inspired by somewhat surrealist names of a cat video, I'm pretty sure naming them "HP Inkjet 3482" would be a worse name for an AI model and lead to copyright issues from Hewlett-Packard.
Even new Kindles don't support EPUB, per-se. The Send-to-Kindle service started supporting EPUB, and converts them to AZW3 or KFX for actual delivery to your Kindle.
But you cannot just USB an EPUB onto your Kindle without any conversion process. (Calibre does make it very simple, though.)
I haven’t looked into it, but does it allow arbitrary UI? It sounds like they’re just buttons that trigger a single action, which isn’t sufficient for replacing menu items.
I'm not sure you appreciate why PHP was successful. You might be completely right about all this, but the LAMP-stack "just upload this file to shared hosting" workflow is what made apps like WordPress win out, and the barrier remains significantly higher to do the equivalent with Rust.
It's a mismatch with our intuition about how much effort things take.
If there's humans involved, "I took this data and made a really fancy interactive chart" means that you put a lot more work into it, and you can probably somewhat assume that this means some more effort was also put into the accuracy of the data.
But with the LLM it's not really very much more work to get the fancy chart. So the thing that was a signifier of effort is now misleading us into trusting data that got no extra effort.
(Humans have been exploiting this tendency to trust fancy graphics forever, of course.)
It is not limited to graphics, better packaged products, better dressed / good looking well spoken person and so on. Celebrity endorsements depend on this thesis.
There has always been a bias towards form over function.
An example that is hard to follow defeats the point. It's just showing what pattern is possible and you can imagine the abstraction layers and indirection that would make it happen accidentally.
It's a mediawiki feature: there's a set of pages that get treated as JS/CSS and shown for either all users or specifically you. You do need to be an admin to edit the ones that get shown to all users.
As an aside, it does seem like a bit of a bad sign for a feature that you know up-front that it'll be so polarizing that you need to have an always-visible top-level "hide this forever!" button.
Why? Shouldn't polarizing features be done exactly this way? The people on one pole use it, those on the other remove it. Perhaps you meant "unwanted" or "unpopular"?
If you never add any features that could be polarizing, then you end up with a lowest common denominator interface that offends nobody and is useful to (almost) nobody.
Is the person best known for exploiting security vulnerabilities to get into places you'd rather they didn't, and then getting lost and taking forever to get places the ideal namesake for your AI workspace project?
reply