granzymes

8 ms·

61.
by granzymes 1y ago
According to the GitHub issue, YouTube didn’t change anything. There are two endpoints that can be used to attribute a view. One is called multiple times throughout a video playback and has been in the easylist privacy filter for years. The
62.
by granzymes 1y ago
Translation happens on-device.
63.
by granzymes 1y ago
Manual labor, going back to before LLMs were a thing. I just like reading S-1s. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27701617#27702669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26362443#26363190 https:/&#x
64.
by granzymes 1y ago
Mostly a 356% increase in R&D: FY Ended December 31, in millions except percentage | 2023 | 2024 | YoY ---------------------------|------|------|------ research and development | $165 | $751 | 3
65.
by granzymes 1y ago
Headline financials: FY Ended December 31, in millions except percentage | 2023 | 2024 | YoY ---------------|--------|--------|------- revenue | $505 | $749 | 48% gross profit | $460 | $6
66.
by granzymes 1y ago
If this significantly cannibalizes Apple’s App Store revenue I would actually expect that they come up with a different way to monetize (maybe based on installs or number of users). They could also implement that independent of the injuncti
67.
by granzymes 1y ago
From least to most speculative: * The nonprofit is staying the same, and will continue to control the for-profit entity OpenAI created to raise capital * The for-profit is changing from a capped-profit LLC to a PBC like Anthropic and Xai *
68.
by granzymes 1y ago
Title seems misleading after reading the article.
69.
by granzymes 1y ago
>deal was where Facebook agreed not to import IG into FB What deal was this?
70.
by granzymes 1y ago
FTC does in fact need to show (directly or through indirect evidence) that Meta has monopoly power in a relevant market and that it abused that power in order to win a Section 2 case. If the relevant market ends up including TikTok or YouTu
71.
by granzymes 1y ago
A court didn’t buy that: the district court and 9th Circuit both held that iOS and Android compete in the Epic v. Apple case. A jury however found that the relevant market in the Epic v. Google case was just Android. Google is understanda
72.
by granzymes 1y ago
No, that is saying that some of the improvements that went into 4.1 have also gone into ChatGPT, including chatgpt-4o-latest (2025-03-26).
73.
by granzymes 2y ago
> Compared to OpenAI o1 and OpenAI o3‑mini, GPT‑4.5 is a more general-purpose, innately smarter model. We believe reasoning will be a core capability of future models, and that the two approaches to scaling—pre-training and reasoning—wil
74.
OpenAI Co-Founder John Schulman Leaves Rival Firm Anthropic(bloomberg.com)
8 points by granzymes 2y ago|0 comments
75.
by granzymes 2y ago
I’ve been following this case, and explained the history here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42889763 . The tile would be more accurate if it said “Apple requests a pause in US vs. Google while it attempts to interven
76.
by granzymes 2y ago
I highly highly doubt that DOJ succeeds in convincing the Court to force Google to divest Chrome. That wasn’t really part of the trial, which focused on Google’s contracts to make its search engine the default on other platforms. However, i
77.
by granzymes 2y ago
Prior to this lawsuit, Apple could bluff and say they would contract with Bing or some other search engine, and indeed evidence from the trial showed that Apple would invite Bing to submit bids but internally was clear that no amount of mon
78.
by granzymes 2y ago
My gut says that Apple will probably get to keep what the Court gave it already (the ability to file two affidavits and participate in the post-hearing briefing) but not full intervention as it originally requested. District courts have ver
79.
by granzymes 2y ago
These types of motions for a stay are analyzed under a four-part test. Apple needs to show that 1) it is likely to succeed in its underlying request, 2) that without a stay it will suffer irreparable harm, 3) that no other party is unduly h
80.
by granzymes 2y ago
I think people have the wrong idea when they see “defendant” in the title. Here’s what happened: Apple has been watching this case closely from the beginning because it implicates the enormous amounts of money that Google pays them to be th
81.
by granzymes 2y ago
This report was published by Common Sense Media, an advocacy organization with a clear interest in pushing this message as part of their lobbying efforts. Maybe their intentions are good (they seem to back some good bills!), but it’s not a
82.
by granzymes 2y ago
I would’ve asked to be taken off of this project if someone had asked me to build this. How embarrassing to need to stoop to this level.
83.
by granzymes 2y ago
>We now turn to the merits, which the parties have argued here in exemplary fashion. But the key flaw in the FCC’s arguments throughout is that the FCC elides the phrase “offering of a capability” as used in § 153(24). That phrase makes
84.
by granzymes 2y ago
You're coming at this from the perspective of "it's weird to change the rules after the fact" which is reasonable but not how stare decisis works. The principle is that once something is decided once, it should be decide
85.
by granzymes 2y ago
The Federal government can regulate broadband providers, just not as telecommunications providers (subject to common carrier requirements) under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Congress could update the law if it wanted to. If the cou
86.
by granzymes 2y ago
The Supreme Court said in Loper Bright that previous cases decided under Chevron are still good law. But this lawsuit challenged a brand new FCC order that had not been previously litigated.
87.
by granzymes 2y ago
Thanks to Loper Bright , we finally have certainty as to what the Telecommunications Act of 1996 actually means. By way of background, the Obama administration first classified broadband providers as telecommunications services subject to
88.
by granzymes 2y ago
Freedom of speech means that the government can't punish you for your speech. It has absolutely nothing to do with your speech being widely shared, listened to, or even acknowledged. No one has the right to an audience.
89.
by granzymes 2y ago
The only thing the Court says on the matter is: >There are reasonable bases to conclude that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate even under these circumstances. We need not, however, definitively decide that question because we conclude
90.
by granzymes 2y ago
While the Court based this decision solely on the non-classified portion of the record, I found this quote to be very interesting: >Notably, TikTok never squarely denies that it has ever manipulated content on the TikTok platform at the

More ›