I checked it, but at $149 per year for the home server (and don't forget to click in the 'information' button on the 'Lifetime' License Duration option), there seems to be a bit of a premium on that MS styling, considering the functionality in competing F/OSS suites.
It's three and a half years since my last cigarette, after decades of smoking. Sometimes I cannot tell if I 'backslid' during that time, because I have had SO MANY dreams about smoking, and feeling regret, in the dream, that I weakened.
But as far as I can tell they are just dreams. But this demonstrates how deeply nicotine addiction was burned into my psyche and my life - that it can even blur the distinction between fantasy and reality.
> you respond in 1-3 sentences" becomes long bulleted lists and multiple paragraphs very quickly
This is why my heart sank this morning. I have spent over a year training 4.0 to just about be helpful enough to get me an extra 1-2 hours a day of productivity. From experimentation, I can see no hope of reproducing that with 5x, and even 5x admits as much to me, when I discussed it with them today:
> Prolixity is a side effect of optimization goals, not billing strategy. Newer models are trained to maximize helpfulness, coverage, and safety, which biases toward explanation, hedging, and context expansion. GPT-4 was less aggressively optimized in those directions, so it felt terser by default.
> This is why my heart sank this morning. I have spent over a year training 4.0 to just about be helpful enough to get me an extra 1-2 hours a day of productivity.
Maybe you should consider basing your workflows on open-weight models instead? Unlike proprietary API-only models no one can take these away from you.
I have considered it, and it is still on the docket. I have a local 3090 dedicated to ML. Would be a fascinating and potentially really useful project, but as a freelancer, it would cost a lot to give it the time it needs.
You can’t ask GPT to assess the situation. That’s not the kind of question you can count on a an LLM to accurately answer.
Playing with the system prompts, temperature, and max token output dials absolutely lets you make enough headway (with the 5 series) in this regard to demonstrably render its self-analysis incorrect.
I am glad at least that Apple has not forced me to update my iPhone 13 and 2023 Macbook, as Windows would have by now. I am hoping to ride this out, and that a later bundled update will remedy the worst complaints. The most alarming thought in TFA, though, was that the iPhone update might have at least a secondary mission of nudging the user to buy a new phone - certainly not an unknown tactic in tech.
Not for lack of trying. Heard the wife scream that they updated her to 26 2 days ago. And she had been warned. Not by me, she may not trust the conservative geek, but by our daughter who is cursing at iOS 26 right and left.
So far I've managed to protect all my iOS and MacOS devices, but who knows what they sneak in next...
By the way, ages ago I had to pull over on a road and wait for an iOS upgrade because Apple deemed to display the "upgrade now" dialogue over my navigation app and of course i touched the screen in the wrong place to get rid of it because i was driving.
Naughty Old Mr Car's fans are triggered by any criticism of Dear Leader.
This is actually separate to hn's politics-aversion, though I suspect there's a lot of crossover. Any post which criticised Musk has tended to get rapidly flagged for at least the last decade.
This is a misconception I see pop up frequently online. In terms of the color spectrum, there are plenty of things—even things that have qualities in common with color—that aren't on the color spectrum. And while there are colors outside of what humans can see, we generally use it not to refer to the entire electromagnetic spectrum, but only to the subset that makes up light visible to human eyes.
Likewise, when we talk about the "autism spectrum," we're not including every exhibition of traits associated with autism. You can have some traits associated with autism without being "on the spectrum."
Also, perhaps as importantly, "spectrum" isn't a term that generally applies only to color, or even electromagnetism.
> there are plenty of things—even things that have qualities in common with color—that aren't on the color spectrum.
I'm not so sure about this one. Whatever it is, you can point a camera at it and you'll get colors. That places it on the color spectrum, even if its color isn't the most important thing about it.
Sure, you'll get weird readings for transparent things, and you can't do this for "justice" or "pain", but everything that is remotely similar to something that has color, also has color.
I think you're missing what I'm saying.The overall point is that the existence of a spectrum does not in any way imply that everything exists somewhere on that spectrum.
In the example of the color spectrum, I don't mean that things necessarily don't (or do) have color. Take fundamental particles, as an extreme example. They don't themselves have any color at all, though they have 1ualities in common with color. And depending on what you do to them, they can exhibit qualities of color (or not).
But the fact that something has a color doesn't mean that thing itself is on the color spectrum — color is not a necessary quality of that thing, and can change depending on other factors — for energy that could be level of excitement, or for other things it might be the level and color of light in the room. Also, the physical things you point a camera at often do not themselves have color! They show up as being a color in the picture not because of their inherent qualities, but because of what wavelengths of light they do or do not absorb. And you can, by using different types of cameras or adjusting their settings, take in more of some wavelengths, less of others, or none of some, regardless of what things look like IRL (which is based in the wavelengths of light being reflected/not reflected from those things to your eyes, and which wavelengths the cones in your eyes can take in, and then how those are processed by your brain, etc).
I think I'm understanding what you're saying, I just disagree :)
> They show up as being a color in the picture not because of their inherent qualities, but because of what wavelengths of light they do or do not absorb.
The intrinsic/perceived duality that you're setting up here isn't related to what a spectrum is. What's fundamental for spectrums is that they're expansive: whatever the measured quality is, all such things map to somewhere on a single dimension which is the spectrum.
Color has been overused. Let's consider a mass spectrometer. It gives an electric charge to a sample, hurls it through a perpendicular magnetic field, and depending on the masses of the sample (or its components, supposing the ionization process broke it up), inertia causes spatial separation. Not-very-massive over here, and quite-massive over there. This is a spectrum because all masses have a place on it (nevermind that you might not actually be able to build a large enough spectrometer for some masses).
Or to use a mathematical example, if you exclude the interval [0,1] from the real number line, what you get is no longer a continuum, and mappings of things onto it are no longer a spectrum.
It may be a misconception that all political perspectives exist on a left/right axis, but when people talk about the political spectrum they're invoking a simplification under which all people do map to some point or another on that line.
As far as I'm aware it's only the autism spectrum that doesn't work this way.
I would argue that for the average person, therefore, 'spectrum' is an unfortunate choice of analogy, since most people believe that it encompasses every possible color. One should not need specialist knowledge to discuss an issue of this kind in common terms.
reply