Maybe the problem is a lot of their marketing relies on the dominance of their search engine (ie sponsored search results, and ads based on user searches, as well as tracking user web usage via their search click throughs and other cookies). If open ai's products become the go to for questions and basic searches, they will eventually be able to use that dominance to include marketing results in their answers. I think this threat is why they want to try to compete with them to be able to offer an alternative. Because it doesn't actually have to be better than chat gpt. It just has to be similar enough for people to continue using Google rather than change their habits to use chatgpt, or Microsoft's implementations of it. Especially with windows 11 where copilot (basically Microsoft rebrand of chatgpt) is built in and you can use it from the task bar. That ease of use may steadily decrease people's reliance on Google search, which will eventually hurt their ability to sell targeted ads.
somethingp
GPT is just trying to get a good tip.
10/10 write up
Most programming (simple tasks, scripting data analysis, most common web apps, basic automation) is about as difficult as doing your own plumbing (which likely includes fixing a faucet or doing other minor tasks around the house). But just like in any profession, the "professionals" are able to handle the complex tasks that others can't/don't want to do. For plumbers that means building the whole home systems to maintain proper pressure/temperature at every outlet, suitable for whatever climate the home is built in, or in commercial settings where the systems are much larger and more complicated.
Ask a professional plumber which they find more taxing: being bent into awkward spaces on their hands and knees all day, or sitting at a desk thinking hard about a problem someone has likely already solved.
Not sure what you're referring to, but Microsoft has always had security incidents because they make the platform(s) that almost everyone uses, and so is commonly the target for malicious actors. This has been the case with Microsoft as long as Windows has been the dominant OS which is since the 90s. Not sure what hiring people outside of the US has to do with this.
Don't know if it's a low service state. They have pretty strong welfare programs, despite what Republicans will have you believe. Their public education is ranked pretty similarly to California for K-12, if not better depending on the specific list. Their public universities are among the best in the country. Their hospitals are the best in the country.
The biggest drawback is that their legislators think they can practice medicine without having the relevant qualifications. But Californian medical laws and viewpoints have their own drawbacks. Let's not forget, before covid, anti-vaxers were primarily associated with crunchy liberal moms refusing to vaccinate their children. California was among the first to have a resurgence of measles. CA is also a state trying to obfuscate medical roles by allowing advanced practitioners (NPs and PAs) to practice independently (without a surprising DO or MD), as well as allowing naturopaths to identify themselves as physicians. While it's easier to see the harms of Texas's medical laws right now, California has had it's fair share of negative impact on it's populous.
A lot of the Republican rhetoric is empty, meaningless, and far from the truth. This is what makes Republican politics so frustrating. They say one thing, want something else, and do something entirely different. As a liberal it makes it difficult to engage in a meaningful conversation with them. But this sort of state comparison based on broad generalizations also increases the divide, while being very unhelpful.
I feel like for 10 of those years, it's acceptable. Maybe even like 12-13 because everyone doesn't learn at the same pace. But for at least the last 5 years, this dude was living in a kind of ignorantly blissful haze that makes me envious of his carefree life.
All of that interest is from people making computers, or people who manage security. Not from people that use computers as part of their life/work (in contrast to those who's work is entirely about the computer itself). From a usability standpoint, this type of sandboxing for every app is cumbersome and all it leads to is users finding unsafe work arounds. I used to be able to use my android phone much more as a regular computer than I can now. And I wanted to make a simple app for myself to allow me to automatically copy and catalog photos from my cameras sd card to an external HDD, and I literally cannot do this without jumping through a million permissions and API hoops on Android even though I never plan on publishing this app for others to use. It became such a pain to figure out how to get access to the folders I would need, I just gave up on the entire project. I essentially needed a tool to systematically copy and rename files, and it's nearly impossible because of these nonsensical policies.
Even if they aren't earning income, they should be able to show they had a product/prototype actually built with the patent before the company they're using developed their product. That way legitimate patent holders who weren't able to monetize their technology but had a working prototype will still be able to protect their patents. So many times, patent trolls hold patents to "ideas" rather than working inventions with prototypes.
Sure except that we already have computers where every app uses the same folder structure, just with some files/folders protected with elevated permissions that aren't accessible to every app. We already have a solution that works and every desktop OS uses. Why would mobile go for a solution that isn't actually usable?
Buy PIA VPN. Look up a guide to setup Plex, radarr, sonarr, and jackett. You can get fancier once you're comfortable with how everything works
Hasn't this always been a possibility? People could always record their screen or take screenshots during meetings or whatever