That's where the comparison with the auto bailout in the wake of the financial crash falls apart.
Intel got no bailout. The government demanded 10% of the company for financial grants that Intel already received, largely under the Biden administration, under vehicles like the CHIPS act (you know -- the massively successful policy that is the actual reason that a bunch of latest tech chip plants are being built in the US). It's an absolutely bizarre situation, and the only reason Intel would even go along with it is that this administration operates like an extortion racket and would somehow cripple the company otherwise.
No idea why you're being downvoted, as this is 100% correct.
HOAs are one of those things that seemingly no one likes, but then people look to buy a house and think it's just some weird coincidence that all of the "nice" neighbourhoods have HOAs. Everyone loves HOAs stopping their neighbours from doing obnoxious things, but are sure that the things they do should be immune from HOA influence.
And FWIW, I live in Canada and here HOAs are very uncommon in subdivisions (though of course condo towers and townhouse complexes with common property and needs have strata/boards that are basically HOAs), because instead municipalities usually have many of the same sort of rules regarding how you upkeep your property, inoperable cars, etc, even if it impinges on "property rights". Indeed, exactly the same stories happen where there are tearjerker stories about how mean the city is bugging someone about their unkempt lawn or junkers in the laneway, when the city in question is coincidentally one of the most desirable cities to live in. It's like people think these are just unrelated things, when the former often follows from the latter.
The “nice” neighborhoods often have HOAs because the government requires new developments to have HOAs as a condition for approving construction. They do this because it saves money by having the HOA maintain things instead of the government.
I live in a delightful neighborhood with no HOA. There are great non-HOA neighborhoods all over for miles around. You know what the real common denominator is for nice neighborhoods? Wealth. That’s it. If you want a nice place, have money and move somewhere other people have money too.
Apple's VO2Max measures are not based upon that deep neural network development, and empirical seems to be conflating a few things. And FWIW, just finding the actual paper is almost impossible as that same site has SEO-bombed Google so thoroughly you end up in the circular-reference empirical world where all of their pages reference each other as authorities.
Apple and Columbia did recently collaborate on a heart rate response model -- one which can be downloaded and trialed -- but that was not related to the development of their VO2Max calculations.
Apple is very shrouded about how they calculate VO2Max, but it likely is a pretty simple calculation (e.g. how much is your heart responding based upon the level of activity assumed based upon your motion, method of exercise and movements). The most detail they provide is in https://www.apple.com/healthcare/docs/site/Using_Apple_Watch..., which mostly is a validation that it's providing decent enough accuracy.
What’s your source on Apple not using the neural network for VO2Max estimation? They’ve been using on-device neural networks for various biomarkers for several years now (even for seemingly simple metrics like heart rate).
FWIW, the article above links directly to both the paper and a GitHub repo with PyTorch code.
>FWIW, the article above links directly to both the paper and a GitHub repo with PyTorch code.
Neat, though the paper and the Github repo have nothing to do with Apple's VO2Max estimations. It's related to health, and touches on VO2Max and health sensors, but the only source claiming any association at all is that Empirical site. And given that this research came out literally years after Apple added VO2Max estimates to their health metrics, it seems pretty conclusive that it is not the source of Apple's calculations. Neat research related to predicting heart rate response to activity (which might come into play for filling in measurement gaps which happen during activity when a device isn't tight enough, etc).
>What’s your source on Apple not using the neural network for VO2Max estimation?
You're asking me to prove a negative. Apple never claims that they do any complex math or deep neural networks to derive VO2Max, and from my own observations of its estimates of mine, it seems remarkably trivial.
Trivial can still be accurate. But it hardly seems complex. Like, guess people's A1c based upon age, body fat percentage, demographic and you'll likely be high-90s accurate with trivial algebra.
>even for seemingly simple metrics like heart rate
Deriving heart rate from a green light imperfectly reflecting off skin, watching for tiny variations in colour change, is actually super complex! Doing it accurately is actually pretty difficult, which is why wearable accuracy is all over the place, though Apple is one of the leaders and has been for years. Guessing a number based upon HR and activity level isn't quite as complex.
These are orthogonal. Maybe we should have max enforcement in both? Indeed, seems like separate groups should be enforcing both?
However I suspect it's also an outdated claim. Shoplifting and other merchandise loss has exploded. In the past five years it has increased 100%+ in many areas. It has almost been normalized where some groups will proudly boast about how they've scammed and stole, especially at self checkouts.
I have zero problem with max enforcement. I'm not a thief and if you have a thousand AI cameras tracking my every move through the store, I simply do not care. I also don't see a particularly slippery slope about systems that highlight the frequent thieves. Further I appreciate that retail operates at a pretty thin margin, so every penny they save (both on labour and by catching/preventing thefts) is actually good for law abiding society. So more of it, please.
>Regulatory authorities and courts enforce against wage theft. Shoplifting enforcement is mostly up to businesses.
Wildly naive and incorrect. Wage theft enforcement is limited by access to government labor rights protection resources and legal counsel, and usually just the first. Even simply filing a claim against shoplifting losses, let alone pursuing criminal prosecution, requires getting law enforcement involved. In all cases, you're waiting on authorities to involve themselves and sign off on outcomes. Time and resources put towards one incident are being kept from being applied to another.
>but that doesn't necessarily track the actual data.
No shoplifting enforcement is done through the courts and most importantly, the police. There is a huge difference here.
Courts incur costs between fees and lawyers, and even filing a report with the dept of labor (the typical recourse most people take at first) means you have to wait while you aren't being compensated for that time. Given wage theft in the majority of cases impacts people who can't often afford to go without those lost wages, this is a tough situation to be in, and even if you go through the labor department with a complaint, manage to get it reviewed in a timely manner (it typically takes months before hearing anything), you may still end up in court anyway depending on a number of factors.
You could sue for the lost wages directly, but again, this becomes an issue of cost, getting the case heard and tried in a timely manner etc. This could drag on for months to years, depending.
On the other hand, if a store sees someone shoplifting, they can and do call the police, and they can and will arrest someone for shoplifting. Its dealt with close to or during the incident occurring. Thats a really big difference in the feedback loop.
Imagine now, that you could call the police when you have a verifiable instance of wage theft, and the person(s) responsible was arrested and you given upfront restitution pending trial. That would be the equivalent of how we treat shoplifting vs wage theft. The differences are not minor, and I imagine they're intentional on behalf of lobbying from business groups.
If business owners or their subordinates were being arrested for wage theft I imagine things would change quickly, but there's such a lag time between actual accountability and the instance of it happening - and even when found guilty they simply pay the back wages plus penalties in the best case scenario, and thats if it gets to the point of either a lawsuit or arbitration on behalf of the labor department - that they have done the calculation that paying incorrect compensation (the most common form of wage theft) is overall costing them less than paying out labor disputes, as with anything that has hefty process attached to it without guaranteed results, it discourages the most vulnerable from engaging with that system even though they would benefit most.
They aren't equivalent, and its disingenuous to see them as such.
>They aren't equivalent, and its disingenuous to see them as such.
Nowhere in my post did I remotely claim equivalence. In actual fact, I was pointing out that they are very different crimes, with different enforcement. Trying to strawman something I didn't actually remotely say is grossly disingenuous.
Whataboutism is grotesque. For any crime, there are always the bores doing the "yeah, but what about worse crime". It's useless noise.
I want both crimes absolutely crushed. If someone is a shoplifting fan because they think wage theft justifes it, they're a garbage person.
A lot of discussions around open offices is induced compliance/conformance.
Years back I was one of the decision makers for an office move for a mid-sized engineering company. I'm a big believer in private spaces such as offices, but where that isn't possible at least sound and visual distraction blocking cubicle designs.
I was treated like an obsolete relic that wasn't onboard with the whole mega teamwork, super-social open office trend. Was I anti-social? Don't I understand collaboration?
Regardless, I made my case and have a lot of pull, so we compromised and made two separate classes of work spaces. An open concept "bullpen" type design, and then a cloistered section of high-walled cubicles (all areas had loads of light, windows, and all other amenities, awesome desks and shelving, etc). Everyone got to choose which area they wanted to work in.
100% of those not given private offices chose the private cubicles. Not 99%, but to a woman it was the universal choice, including among the moralizing, very outspoken "team work" open office advocates.
Because they didn't believe a word of what they were saying. It was just patter to convey their great team bonafides.
You have to share your contact information, including DoB, and then be approved access, to obtain the models, and given that it's Meta I assume they're actually validating it against their All Humans database.
They made their own DINOv3 license for this release (whereas DINOv2 used the Apache 2.0 license).
Neat though. Will still check it out.
As a first comment, I had to install the latest transformer==4.56.0dev (e.g. pip install git+https://github.com/huggingface/transformers) for it to work properly. 4.55.2 and earlier was failing with a missing image type in the config.
Yes, it's pretty disappointing for a seemingly big improvement over SOTA to be commercially licensed compared the previous version.. At least in the press release they're not portraying it as open source just because it's on GitHub/HuggingFace.
This has nothing to do with the newly appointed fellow nor Meta Superintelligence Labs, but rather work from FAIR that would have gone through a lengthy review process before seeing the light of day. Not fun to see the license change in any case
I remember DINOv2 was originally a commercial licence. I (along with others) just asked if they could change it on a GitHub issue, and after some time, they did. Might be worth asking
That guy is a great reference, and through his videos you can find various measures where he compares devices against reference devices (e.g. the Polar H10 for heart rate for instance). A lot of the reliability of these devices relies upon a tight fit as well.
Indeed, just generally this is a silly feature that was used to sell updated devices, but has almost no value to end users. There is shockingly little diagnostic value of the reading unless you are in such a critical state that you likely want something better than an incredibly unreliable and inaccurate smartwatch feature cram.
For anyone remotely healthy, 100% of the time your real value will be between 95% and 99%, and there is almost no diagnostic value to it. Heart rate is actually interesting and is something you can learn from and work towards. SpO2 is just "eh...neat".
Sure, but unlike heart conditions where people often have no idea (about afib, or even abnormally high or low heart rates), people generally know when they have respiratory difficulties. Like the other comment noted something about family having pneumonia, and I cannot understand how the watch would have made their situation better. If someone in that state wasn't already seeking medical advice, it's hugely unlikely a watch saying "yo it's bad bro" is going to help.
It's like heralding a G-sensor in your watch telling you that you're falling. It's likely pretty obvious already.
Seems to me, it has some value (again, if it's accurate) for letting people know about sleep apnea; especially as part of an overall sleep tracking dodad.
I've got enough mild asthma around me that we have a finger pulseox (or two cause we "lost" one and found it later) and I've started yelling at sick people to check it once in a while. Cause they don't usually think to, but sometimes it lingers and by the time they decide to go into an office, the numbers are pretty low.
Of course, we're not on the Apple bandwagon and stopped wearing watches once we got used to having pocket watches again.
as some one whose family passed away due to pneumonia, spo2 is a life saving feature if we had that back then. probably 99.9% of the time spo2 number is good enough. but the value is really about the left 0.1% . of course the false positive rate should be low enough.
"Boomer C-Suites who fancy themselves Enterprise Tech executives and are happy to throw humans at any problem were happy buying off the Gartner catalog and then hitting the golf course. Today, millennial CEOs and CTOs get their analysis and news sources from X, /r/LocalLlama, the All In Podcast, Semianalysis Substacks, any number of YouTubes and Podcasts."
This reads like parody. I see another post in here talking about "Boomer catch phrasing" (in a word salad comment) which is simply hilarious.
While this millennial thought guru seems to think their age defines them, I think the rest of us realize that there are gullible rubes in every age group. There are fresh new recruits citing the gartner magic quadrant or whatever nonsense makes their world feel more orderly. I mean, LinkedIn is absolutely full of hilarious nonsense from people at every age trying to show that they Ordered The World because of some list or source they subscribe to.
I lost a bit of respect for author, who I see frequently here on HN and elsewhere. I always thought they were reasonable, highly technical and have been casually following them since their svelte days.
Their pivot to AI and rebranding (from a dev advocate who did js frameworks to now suddenly being an expert of AI/LLMs) was inspiring but this take has left me with a poor taste in my mouth.
Yeah poorly phrased, but swyx is a good & kind dude who will do just about anything to hep folks out. I think he's just understandably frustrated with a dated (and rather parasitic) business model.
And I've known some good Gartner analysts... I just want this market to evolve as a win/win for everyone.
(author here) sorry you feel that way. this was just a rant because its fun to get unhinged every now and then - dx.tips is my outlet for that. if you see my work on latent.space and ai.engineer that's more representative of my "normal" self :)
Eh. They're not wrong. A lot of folks still pay Gartner money to be on their lists, but it's more of a feeling that you have to, and not because it actually leads to any results.
Having worked in both corporate and startup worlds, I've rarely seen anyone under 40 reference a Gartner report as credible or actually use that as a source of information. Everyone knows it's pay-to-play, not particularly credible, and as the younger generations age into these very senior roles, I have no doubt that Gartner will lose a lot of relevance.
Given that trust in "mainstream media" has pretty much collapsed everywhere, I don't really doubt that this will inevitably hit the obvious corporate gatekeepers as well. Enterprise/b2b is just 10-20 years behind on trends experienced elsewhere.
"People used to rely on this thing. As replacements come along and a bit of the magic was revealed to be a hoax, people rely less on that thing so it became less valuable."
Amazing, super simple to understand and without any need for hilariously shallow bigotry!
I haven't heard anyone in business -- like you, having worked in F100, corporate, startups, and so on -- reference a Gartner report seriously in well over a decade. From any age group. Whether "boomer" or super savvy YouTube-watching (lol) "millenial". I mean, I know they exist as this company still has revenue, but it seems like classic inertia where people are just going through the motions of historic norms as something is phased out, precisely why the market is looking poorly on the company.
Seriously, trying to tie the evolution of industry to some sort of tired, laughable ageist nonsense is just boorish. Be better.
When someone older yips about how younguns today are all cooked and they play Roblox all day, it looks like ageist shrieking from someone with little nuance and a very binary view of the world. It is no different when laughable pieces like this appear.
This passage completely undercuts the overall message the author is going for. The idea that the All In podcast or the remaining users of Twitter are authoritative is laughable.
I didn’t downvote you, but I do agree with the author. The boomer CTOs Ive worked under have almost always been incredibly unqualified and resistant to change. They are not moving in the same physical or digital circles and therefore need Gartner to inform them of where the industry is headed. I wondered at why they hold these jobs and my guess is that it’s due to “the people they know” which is usually boomers at other companies. Its a scam.
Intel got no bailout. The government demanded 10% of the company for financial grants that Intel already received, largely under the Biden administration, under vehicles like the CHIPS act (you know -- the massively successful policy that is the actual reason that a bunch of latest tech chip plants are being built in the US). It's an absolutely bizarre situation, and the only reason Intel would even go along with it is that this administration operates like an extortion racket and would somehow cripple the company otherwise.