I don’t think Bing is the default search engine for Android’s browser. I could be wrong though. Is it? That would be a surprisingly fair-minded move of Google.
By context I’m pretty sure they mean Windows OS and not android, sometimes you have to take things in context. Depending on context one could easily argue that linux is the most common operating system depending on where you draw the line on operating system
I am pointing out that Windows is not the most common OS, and Android is.
The original comment was saying that Google is able to perform anti-competitively because they control the most popular browser.
The followup (which I responded to) is saying that the existence of Windows as the most popular OS, and Microsoft’s control over the default browser there, mitigates this anti-competitive potential.
The fact that Windows is not the most popular OS (and that, in fact, the most popular OS is controlled by Google) undermines that argument.
Linux is not the most popular OS in any context that includes doing searches with the thing, unless you include Android, but Android just uses Linux for the kernel mostly, and an OS is more than a kernel.
It's the most common desktop OS. No one was confused by what the parent meant since Windows is not a mobile operating system and doesn't compete in that market.
I think it's fair for them to point out (however snarkily) that Windows is not the most popular OS. In the context of the discussion, I think it matters that there is another OS, Android, that is more popular.
I think their point is that you can't just say "most popular" without more context because not only is it often subjective, but it can also be interpreted in different ways. Most popular by type of device? number of total users worldwide? etc.
Every Linux distro just uses Linux for the kernel, right? What else is there? Init system and user space stuff isn’t Linux in any Linux distro either, because Linux is a kernel. The real thing that might make Android not a normal Linux distro is the heavy modification of the Kernel.
A Linux distro uses the Linux kernel by definition, I guess, so I think you are right about that. We could talk about distros in general, maybe Homebrew and Cygwin, if we didn’t want to define a distro as being a Linux distro. But I’m not sure what the point is.
I’m not clear on what they meant by Linux. But if we use a definition of “Linux OS” that includes Android and is restricted to devices which people typically use to perform searches (aka consumer devices) (since that was the original topic), then Linux is mostly Android and it is a kind of pointless distinction to make.
If we want to use some definition of Linux that precludes Android, and covers all devices that use the Linux kernel, then we have a bunch of servers, streaming boxes, smart lightbulbs, whatever.
If we want to use a definition which is, like, what I think everyone means when they say Linux in the context of market share: GNU/Linux or BusyBox/other/Linux (I was hoping to avoid the GNU/Linux meme, but here we are), then that doesn’t have much market share.
There is much more Android phones, tablets, TVs, Linux routers and other gear sold every year than Intel-based PCs with ME, so the articles' claim may need narrowing to "OS used in PCs" and even that has a chance of being wrong, given how AMD is doing these years.
>Bing is already the default search engine on the default browser of the most used OS in the world.
It's actually more embedded in Windows than Google is in Android.
If you change your default engine in Android it changes across the OS.
In Windows, there are dialogs that say "search bing for" embedded into places like the right click menu when you have text highlighted that remain even after attempting to express a different search choice. Another example is the search bar in a new tab.
It's possible that both things could be true. He may be a greedy liar while still being very concerned about ASI safety and wanting it to be controlled by humanity collectively (or at least the population of each country, via democratic means).
Maybe he is only a greedy liar. I don't know. I'm just stating my personal belief/speculation.
We have lots of sizes of pizza. Though I think the type they mean are the sort ordered from chain places for large groups, so usually 14-16 inches (35-40cm) diameter cut into 8-12 slices.
Well alright everyone grabs a couple of slices, I'd say typical is 8 slices per pizza right, so that works out to 8 people, which yes is what it means doesn't it? (Not literally 8 but in that 6-10ish region?)
My point was if you interpret it to mean a full meal for hungry people a two pizza team is like 2 maybe 4 people, because 'a pizza' is an order, unless these are enormous fast food 'party size' type pizzas.
2 slices is considered to be a meal. Calorie wise, it likely is. Typical large pizza has 8 slices. The vagueness is intentional. From the Amazon concept, it is intended to replace a meal and not be a random snack. (Former amazon employee here)
Sure I'm not really getting into whether or not it's supposed to serve as your lunch and whether it's a healthy limit even if you'd like more^, etc. - I just mean it's meant with the assumption that people are having that much, not that it's your orders at a team outing to an Italian restaurant or something. (In which we agree.)
^personally I work from home and rarely eat lunch, so I have no skin in this!
Regional/cultural differences, appetite and body size, pizza styles, etc.
For small teams that makes for a meaningful difference between the min and max. For large teams not so much.
My wife and I have no issues finishing a 16in tavern style pizza. So that's a 4 person team. We're not even large people or big eaters. We just like pizza.
I hear you. I love that you can share a favorite food like that with your partner :)
When I worked for amzn.. I was eating approx 3500 calories a day - long bike commute. Pizza was always disappointing as rarely enough (and even then, eating my fill would be too much. I had to go out and still buy another lunch anyways* - and almost always not enough veg pizzas!). We perhaps could get into the variety of factors, yeah, eg: nutrition density to as a function of toppings.
Though.. if you look at serving size and how many people a large is meant to feed, it is pretty simply just 3 to 4.
* worse yet, because lunch was delivered, there was an expectation to work an extra hour that day (ie: working lunch meeting, and certainly do not go home early). Foing out to get enough real food and suddenly I was the bad guy for being the one team member not in office. Actually buying lunch was easier, I would just buy two at once.. Thinking back to that time, holy shit the work expectations were something else..
If you are willing to offer an extended warranty for X years, then that's pretty good evidence that I should be covered by the CGA for at least that long.
When Waymo was only available in Chandler AZ it was often said here on HN that it needed to go to SF, with all of the foggy weather, and narrow and hilly streets, to prove its worth. I guess Waymo has passed that test and SF has became an “easy” place. What would be the next difficult place that will become easy someday?
They don't run the self-driving cars in the fog. Also, the streets aren't that narrow compared to most other major cities. It's certainly a step up from Arizona, though.
They absolutely do run in the fog, I live in a particularly foggy part of the city and take them several times a week.
And SF absolutely does have lots of narrow streets. There are a lot of neighborhoods where the roads are only wide enough for one direction of traffic at a time due to parked cars. Either you or the oncoming car needs to pull to the side in front of a driveway to pass. Waymo handles these situations expertly.
Based on your other posts in here you seem to have some kind of axe to grind and are making stuff up. Go watch some Youtube videos.
> And SF absolutely does have lots of narrow streets. There are a lot of neighborhoods where the roads are only wide enough for one direction of traffic at a time due to parked cars. Either you or the oncoming car needs to pull to the side in front of a driveway to pass. Waymo handles these situations expertly.
That is not a narrow urban road, unless you have about 3 inches on either side of your car. Drive in Europe or NYC sometime.
I have no axes to grind, but I find the optimism of "[X technology] works in [Y very easy condition], so it's going to explode any time now" somewhat tiresome and naive. I have been hearing it about self-driving cars for >10 years now (since the DARPA challenges). Plenty of technologies never leave the garden of that easy condition.
I've driven in NYC plenty. I think if they can navigate situations that are this narrow they can probably handle narrow roads in NYC adequately: https://youtu.be/YtbhoLp96DE?t=423
People said for a long time that self driving cars would never handle the complexity of SF, the fog, the rain, the hills, the bikes, the narrow streets, the crowds of pedestrians. Now that they do, I take the opposite view of you. I think the only hurdles left are snow, economics, and regulation. They are high hurdles, but seem solvable.
Right, but the employee would be able to refuse the consideration, and thus the contract, and the state of affairs wouldn't change. They would be free to say whatever they wanted.
If they refuse the contract then they lose out on their options vesting. Basically, OpenAI's contracts work like this:
Employment Contract the First:
We are paying you (WAGE) for your labor. In addition you also will be paid (OPTIONS) that, after a vesting period, will pay you a lot of money. If you terminate this employment your options are null and void unless you sign Employment Contract the Second.
Employment Contract the Second:
You agree to shut the fuck up about everything you saw at OpenAI until the end of time and we agree to pay out your options.
Both of these have consideration and as far as I'm aware there's nothing in contract law that requires contracts to be completely self-contained and immutable. If two parties agree to change the deal, then the deal can change. The problem is that OpenAI's agreements are specifically designed to put one counterparty at a disadvantage so that they have to sign the second agreement later.
There is an escape valve in contract law for "nobody would sign this" kinds of clauses, but I'm not sure how you'd use it. The legal term of art that you would allege is that the second contract is "unconscionable". But the standard of what counts as unconscionable in contract law is extremely high, because otherwise people would wriggle out of contracts the moment that what seemed like favorable terms turned unfavorable. Contract law doesn't care if the deal is fair (that's the FTC's job), it cares about whether or not the deal was agreed to.
If say that you were working at Reddit for quite a number of years and all your original options had vested and you had exercised them, then since Reddit went public you would now easily be able to sell your stocks, or keep them if you want. So then you wouldn’t need to sign the second contract. Unless of course you had gotten new options that hadn’t vested yet.
The same sort of person who would sign a contract agreeing that in order to take advantage of their options, they need to sign a contract with unclear terms at some point in the future if they leave the company.
Bear in mind there are actually three options, one is signing the second contract, one is not signing, and the other is remaining an employee.
Btw, do you have any idea whey they even bother with the second contract? Couldn't they just write the same stuff into the first contract in the first place?
is it even a valid contract clause to tie the value of something to a future completely unknown agreement? (or yes, it's valid, and it means that savvy folks should treat it as zero.)
(though most likely the NDA and everything is there from day 1 and there's no second contract, no?)
> is it even a valid contract clause to tie the value of something to a future completely unknown agreement?
I don't know about this specific case, but many contracts have these kinds of provisions. Eg it's standard in an employment contract to say that you'll follow the directions of your bosses, even though you don't know those directions, yet.
Arguably a good point, but remember that the reason for that was that the settlement went too far in punishing the Germans. If it was a less "aggressive" settlement, arguably there would've been no WWII (but we can't know that, of course).
That's the difference.
reply