Considering Microsoft's significant (and vocal) investment in LLMs, I fear the current state of Windows 11 is related to a team trying to do exactly that.
I noticed that dialog that has worked correctly for the past 10+ years is using a new and apparently broken layout. Elements don't even align properly.
It's hard to imagine a human developer misses something so obvious.
In British English you'd be wrong for using an em-dash in those places, with most grammar recommendations being for an en-dash, often with spaces.
It's be just as wrong as using an apostrophe instead of a comma.
Grammar is often wooly in a widely used language with no single centralised authority. Many of the "Hard Rules" some people thing are fundamental truths are often more local style guides, and often a lot more recent than some people seem to believe.
Interesting, I’m an American English speaker but that’s how it feels natural to me to use dashes. Em-dashes with no spaces feels wrong for reasons I can’t articulate. This first usage—in this meandering sentence—feels bossy, like I can’t have a moment to read each word individually. But this second one — which feels more natural — lets the words and the punctuation breathe. I don’t actually know where I picked up this habit. Probably from the web.
It can also depend on the medium. Typically, newspapers (e.g. the AP style guide) use spaces around em-dashes, but books / Chicago style guide does not.
As a brit I'd say we tend to use "en-dashes", slightly shorter versions - so more similar to a hyphen and so often typed like that - with spaces either side.
I never saw em-dashes—the longer version with no space—outside of published books and now AI.
There are British style manuals (e.g., the Guardian’s) that prefer em-dashes for roughly the same set of uses they tend to perferred for in US style guides, but it is mixed between em-dashes and en-dashes (both usually set open), while all the influential American style guides prefer em-dashes (but split, for digressive/parenthetical use, between setting them closed [e.g., Chicago Manual] and open [e.g., AP Style].)
Besides the LaTeX use, on Linux if you have gone into your keyboard options and configured a rarely-used key to be your Compose key (I like to use the "menu" key for this purpose, or right Alt if on a keyboard with no "menu" key), you can type Compose sequences as follows (note how they closely resemble the LaTeX -- or --- sequences):
Compose, hyphen, hyphen, period: produces – (en dash)
Compose, hyphen, hyphen, hyphen: produces — (em dash)
And many other useful sequences too, like Compose, lowercase o, lowercase o to produce the ° (degree) symbol. If you're running Linux, look into your keyboard settings and dig into the advanced settings until you find the Compose key, it's super handy.
P.S. If I was running Windows I would probably never type em dashes. But since the key combination to type them on Linux is so easy to remember, I use em dashes, degree symbols, and other things all the time.
> If I was running Windows I would probably never type em dashes. But since the key combination to type them on Linux is so easy to remember, I use em dashes, degree symbols, and other things all the time.
There are compose key implementations for Windows, too.
I think that's just incorrect. There are varying conventions for spaces vs no spaces around em dashes, but all English manuals of style confine to en dashes just to things like "0–10" and "Louisville–Calgary" — at least to my knowledge.
HMRC style guide: "Avoid the shorter en dash as they are treated differently by different screen readers" [0].
But I see what you mean. There used to be a distinction between a shorter dash that is used for numerical ranges, or for things named after multiple people, and a longer dash used to connect independent clauses in a sentence [1]. I am shocked to hear that this distinction is being eroded.
That guy's style guide seems to conflict with the Cambridge editorial services guidelines - though that is for books rather than papers:
> Spaced en rules (or ‘en dashes’) must be used for parenthetical dashes. Hyphens or em rules
(‘em dashes’) will not be accepted for either UK or US style books. En rules (–) are longer than
hyphens (-) but shorter than em rules (—).
Came here to confirm this. I grew up learning BrE and indeed in BrE, we were taught to use en-dash. I don't think we were ever taught em-dash at all. My first encounter with em-dash was with LaTeX's '---' as an adult.
Fixed point arithmetic isn't truly associative unless they have infinite precision. The second you hit a limit or saturate/clamp a value the result very much depends on order of operations.
Ah yes, I forgot about saturating arithmetic. But even for that, you wouldn't need infinite precision for all values, you'd only need "enough" precision for the intermediate values, right? E.g. for an inner product of two N-element vectors containing M-bit integers, an accumulator with at least ceil(log2(N))+2*M bits would guarantee no overflow.
True, you can increase bit width to guarantee never hit those issues, but right now saturating arithmetic on types that pretty commonly hit those values is the standard. Guaranteeing it would be a significant performance drop and/or memory use increase with current techniques to the level it would significantly affect availability and cost compared to what people expect.
Similarly you could not allow re-ordering of operations and similar - so the results are guaranteed to be deterministic (even if still "not correct" compared to infinite precision arithmetic) - but that would also have a big performance cost.
I worked on an extremely niche project revolving around an old DOS game. Code I worked on is often pretty much the only reference for some things.
It's trivially easy to get claude to scrape that and regurgitate it under any requested licence (some variable names changes, but exactly the same structure - though it got one of the lookup tables wrong, which is one of the few things you could argue aren't copyrighted there).
It'll even cheerfully tell you it's fetching the repository while "thinking". And it's clearly already in the training data - you can get it to detail specifics even disallowing that.
If I referenced copywritten code we didn't have the license for (as is the case for copyleft licenses if you don't follow the restrictions) while employed as a software engineer I'd be fired pretty quick from any corporation. And rightfully so.
People seem to have a strange idea with AI that "copyleft" code is free game to unilaterally re-license. Try doing that with leaked Microsoft code - you're breaking copyright just as much there, but a lot of people seem to perceive it very differently - and not just because of risk of enforcement but in moralizing about it too.
The overwhelming majority of devs do not concern themselves with nor are even familiar with the concept of software licenses, let alone how to abide by them. I argue that it's not that they think it's "free game to [...] re-license" so much so as they think it's just code and they can use it without the idea of a licence ever even crossing their mind.
Source: find literally anything on GitHub using dependencies that are MIT licensed and being distributed without following the terms that state you must also redistribute the licence for each
It goes much further than that. They use LLMs to create code for them and then they claim ownership to the code.
I think that is one of the main reasons there is so much pushback against this, a lot of people are now addicted to their stream of washed code and want to claim ownership over what is essentially a derived work. The key then becomes 'if a work could not have been written by the author that claims it does that claim survive'. I think it should not but there is plenty of disagreement on this.
Isn’t similar to looking up/copying code from stack overflow, Google or books? Use it as reference to write the code and claim ownership. My little understanding is that the whole copyright free ride for LLMS is because it is similar to the process of humans using content under copyright as reference to create something new and claim ownership.
No, it is not similar at all. There is the pesky little thing called 'copyright' which allows you to set terms under which you license your code. Stackoverflow, google and books all come with strings attached.
Your idea of how humans use content under copyright is mistaken.
I want to make an ajax request using jQuery. I look up an example in StackOverflow. I use a very similar code to the example given in the post and by not giving any attribution I just claim ownership.
Same with Spring in action books or looking up Java class references. Many times I look something up and use it as reference just tweaking the examples given.
Millions of programmers have done this.
LLMS in principle use the training data to generate an answer to the prompt, similar to the process I described.
I mean technically there's nothing they can do that SMM couldn't - introduced in a revision of the 386. It's code running with system permissions invisible to the "parent" user code and OS.
You're already pretty much trusting the same people then as now, at least if they are "actively malicious".
Precisely a Core Duo and a custom build with -O3 -ffast-math (a Chess engine doesn't requiere anything further from integers) and -march=$YOUR_CPU_THERE can yield crazy performance speeds without needing an m4 and a great match even for masters.
That happened to me when I had an ipad in a standing case and the seat in front cranked back - trapping then pinging the tablet across me and by neighbour's lap.
Though the ipad itself wasn't damaged, a couple of glasses didn't make it, and required the steward to try to brush up whatever fragments of glass they could.
I feel that airlines are a microcosm of "Do you care about who you actions might affect?" - similar to the "Do you return the cart to the corral" test at supermarkets - are you willing to put even the smallest bit of effort to significantly improve other people's experiences?
Airlines shouldn't have reclining seats, it's bad design. Blaming people for the bad design is stupid. I never recline and still blame it on the design. Stupid people exist, you should design for that.
Sorry for an empty response but this, 100% this. As a person who is WELL over 6' tall, the very idea that the person in front of me might recline is enough to give me significant anxiety throughout a flight. I once saw a design for seats where the base slides forward if you want to recline - the idea being, if you're going to recline you're going to do so into your own space, not the person behind you. I'd be a big advocate of that change in seat design...
If I put my knees together and sit up straight (back hard against my seat), my knees are hard against the seat in front. They can’t recline. It doesn’t even hurt, the seat just won’t move. Last flight someone turned around and complained then complained to the stewardess. I’m not sticking my legs into my neighbours space, am the time I extended into the aisle I fell asleep and got knee capped by a trolley.
‘Where would you like me to put my legs?’
I’m writing this from a plane seat, having paid for extra room and having been bumped by the airline. That’s nz$1000 gone and 17 hours of misery.
Qatar. Never again.
Aside: I also don’t recline without any empty seat or sleeping person behind.
I'm also over 6' and I don't understand the problem? The seats only recline a few degrees, it's not like they're laying on my lap! Even fully reclined there's plenty of space in front of my face, and leg room is barely impacted at all. (Like probably an inch max?)
Granted, I've only flown American and Delta, maybe other airlines are worse in this respect?
I'm 6'4" with a lot of my height in my legs. Sitting comfortably (not slouching, mind you), my knees already barely rub against the seat in front of me. As soon as that seat is reclined, my knees get crushed and I have to either sit up even straighter or twist to the side, neither of which are comfortable. Or, I have to pay to be in a higher fare class with more space.
Have you tried the exit row instead? Sure, you might have to agree to help others, but if you aren't willing to do that regardless of the row, then that just says a lot about you.
Yepp, I generally will try for the exit row or the first row in a section (sacrificing no under seat storage), but they tend to be the first seats booked. Since I'm usually traveling with multiple other people and we prefer sitting together, it makes it pretty difficult to reliably select those seats with extra leg room. I haven't seen any airlines that charge "+$25 for the extra leg room" on 12+ hour international flights, but if they exist I'd love to know which ones they are!
It's been awhile 2017ish, but I used to book flights for a team of photographers that traveled a lot. They all had their individual preferences for aisle/window, exit row. Maybe it was because they all had lots of butt-in-chair miles, but their upgrades were typically $25 for domestic US travel. Maybe I'm conflating that as the price for everyone when it was the price for their status only???
The physical requirements are an issue for a lot of people. E.g. a tall senior citizen, anyone flying with a small child, anyone with a visible disability (temporary or otherwise).
I know American at least has some rows with extra leg room that aren't the exit row. (Though obviously if you want more space you have to pay for it.) Not sure about others.
Yes, it's usually called "premium economy" or something like that. I was resistant for a long time, but eventually decided that being able to walk the next day without pain was worth the extra cost. That said, they tend to fill up quickly -- so not always an option.
Many airlines don't let you choose your seat without paying extra. But yeah, maybe if you're that tall that's just an unfortunate extra cost you have to bear.
At some point you have to do the math. Is +$25 for the extra leg room worth it for a 3 hour flight? 6 hour flight?
I flew from DFW to Sydney on a flight that was not fully booked. They made an announcement for a $150 upgrade to have an entire row to yourself. Once in the air, all of the armrests could be raised to allow you to lay flat. $150/17hours ~= $9/hour for a comfortable-ish sleep on a long haul flight. That's better math than the app subscription model threads have.
Those few degrees matter if your knees are already brushing the back of the seat in front of you. It matters how tall you are, how much of that is in your legs, how big your feet are (the more you need to bend your knees, the higher they will be), and it also varies depending on seat design and layout.
For others like me, one trick is to at most minimally use the under seat storage: small handbags only. No backpacks, briefcases, or anything else big enough to hold a laptop. Then, you can put your feet in that space. This lowers my knees by 1-2 inches depending on the plane, which really matters. It's the only thing that helps significantly, aside from paying for premium economy. Doesn't help with the claustrophobia, but there's not much to be done about that.
The other things I've tried (that don't reliably work) are leaning forward from the seat back (to pull my knees back) and slouching slightly (so that the inevitable recline compresses the seat back into my knees rather than bashing them). The former saves my knees, but sacrifices my back. The latter kind of helps during the flight, but walking will still hurt the next day.
> one trick is to at most minimally use the under seat storage [...] Then, you can put your feet in that space
Oh, interesting. I've always done that, it never really occurred to me that others might not. Even if you have a bigger bag you can always take it out during the flight to make space for your feet. That, plus crossing my legs allows me to have my legs flat against the chair (and therefore my knees well below the level where the person in front reclining would make much difference).
Well, it can be annoying to limit oneself to a smaller under-seat bag. Taking the bigger bag out during the flight uses up even more of the available space. I've generally got nowhere to put it except behind my legs (which cramps things a lot): on my lap doesn't work if I want to actually use anything in that bag.
It's easier to just pack my laptop (plus anything I might use during the flight) in my overhead bin carry-on. It's a real pain to actually get anything out of there, but a paperback book or ebook reader will fit in a coat pocket or small handbag -- and that's all I truly need on the plane. Plus, the airline won't be able to force you to check your overhead carry-on that way since the laptop has lithium batteries in it.
Why does leg length matter? Reclining doesn't impact leg room much since only the upper part of the seat is moving backwards any significant distance, and the space under the seat where my feet go is completely unaffected.
Are your legs so long you have to sit with your knees pressed against the back of the seat in front of you or something? If so I suppose that's understandable.
"Are your legs so long you have to sit with your knees pressed against the back of the seat in front of you or something? If so I suppose that's understandable."
Yes and also for people with long legs, seated in a typical airline seat, their knees will be significantly higher than the top of the seat cushion. So, they get caught up in the sweep of a reclining seatback ahead.
My legs are long enough there isn't room for them to press against the back of the seat. I'm either manspreading into the crevases between seats or in foetal position with my knees halfway up the seat in front of me. A person reclining is excruciating in the former, but in the latter position at least the person in front can't recline as there's no physical space for my body to become more compact. Flying is hell.
Yes, my knees often/always bump into the seat in front of me, even without it being reclined. If/when it is reclined it means my knees are pressed harder backwards.
When I can, I pay for extra leg room or get an aisle seat.
My opinion is strongly that seats should not be reclined. It is inconsiderate.
> I agree that sounds frustrating. Respectfully though, it sounds like you're a special case
It would be interesting to know the numbers on this. Height is not going to tell the answer though, you as people of the same height have wildly variably limb length.
I know half a dozen people who have the same issue and they vary from 1.9-2.1m tall.
I think once you get past the 95th percentile in any metric like that things start to get more difficult. I'm not even that tall and I sometimes have trouble finding pants that fit me. I imagine there are probably similar difficulties on the other end of the spectrum being below the 5th percentile.
I used to have so much trouble with pants (I need 30-34 in inches, 86.4cm long and about 76cm waist). No store had that size. I once got to the point where I considered leaning into my Scottish heritage and just wearing a kilt.
The internet has alleviated that for me, but if it hasn't for you -- look for pants with a large hem, and learn some basic sewing skills. It's occasionally possible to add an inch or more of length with the right pair.
Sure, my femurs are longer than most peoples, but they are with me on _every_ flight I take.
So it is kind of frustrating to me with people like in this thread explicitly saying "I do not care, I will recline my seat, it is not my problem if someone else suffers, they are just being entitled".
That's exactly how it usually happens in my experience. I think a lot of people are OK if everyones upright on short haul flights (here most budget airlines don't have a recline facility and it's not missed) but once someone reclines into your space you then recline to gain a little space back and the domino effect takes place even if you're not sleeping.
And then the person in the last row is screwed because they are in a seat that doesn't recline but the seat in front of them does, so they have to sit like a canned sardine for the entire flight(ask me how I know).
> Flights from sfo to Frankfurt bolt upright sound unpleasant
Same flight with someone's seat resting on your knees is downright painful.
> when my wife was pregnant
Imagine if she was a bit taller and someone reclined the seat all the way over her.
> The recline button is there for your use
You're right, like any shared resource, "space" is there for you to use. It doesn't mean you have to use it, you could try to be aware of your surroundings and assess whether your small comfort should come at the cost of someone else's extreme discomfort. And if you use the button others are also free, and probably correct, to call you a dick. Like a guy who empties the bowl of complimentary candy someone offers to all customers.
You shouldn't need physical blocks or laws to define your own common sense and decency.
I'm 185cm and I couldn't imagine having to endure a long haul flight without reclining.
I never get these discussions. It's only ever online that I see complaints. Almost everyone reclines on long flights. It's normal. It's expected. If it makes you uncomfortable that's a you problem, everyone else seems fine with it. If it makes you physically uncomfortable, pay for extra leg room. Don't make your problem the problem of another passenger.
> I never get these discussions. It's only ever online that I see complaints. everyone else seems fine with it
That's a skewed conclusion you're drawing. Are you really surprised that people aren't willing to risk escalating the situation on a plane, arguing with what's likely the very inconsiderate person in front of them? Most people have an aversion to conflict. It doesn't mean "they're fine with it". You probably don’t advertise in real life how much you lean back and not care who’s behind you out of fear that people will change your opinion of you. Real life is a harsh mistress.
I've bumped into people and they said "sorry", do you think they wanted me to bump into them, liked it, and actually believed it was their mistake? No, I just tower at close to 2m so they didn't want to escalate the situation.
P.S. I always look at who sits behind me, if they're "space constrained" or not, and almost always ask if I can recline. Sometimes I don't bother, clearly the person will suffer. Sometimes they said "I'd rather not, thank you". Many times they said "fine". I used to fly a lot and my experience was very clearly not that "everyone is fine". I was never fine even if I didn't start arguing. So how would you have known?
I've literally never been on a 5+ hour flight where anyone in the row in front of me didn't recline at some point.
I've discussed this with various people IRL. No one, including taller people than me, ever complained about people being inconsiderate for reclining. Every tall person complains about leg room.
The vast majority of people do not think it's inconsiderate to recline. They think it's normal and that the function is there for a reason.
I actually think it's inconsiderate to complain to the person in front if they want to recline. The only time that is acceptable is when meals are served.
Anecdotal, but I'm 193cm, take a few 12+ hour flights per year, and have no problem not reclining. For what it's worth, I feel like I've experienced people on my shorter, domestic flights reclining their seats more often than on my longer, international flights.
You're tall so you can't sit upright? :P Do you need to lean backwards when you work too? I think you are wrong and a lot of people are not fine with it. I don't need a closeup view of someone's bald spot while trying to eat shitty airplane food.
Mainly because they were introduced when the seats were set farther apart. Now companies squeeze more rows and keep the same seats.
But also because with any shared resource there's an expectation of decency involved. Some people just betray that expectation. They're the ones with the mentality that "they shouldn't have served alcohol if they didn't want me to get insufferably drunk", "they shouldn't have put the candy out if they didn't want me to take all of it", "why is the swing there in the park if not for my kids to use them continuously to the disappointment of other kids".
When your wife was pregnant someone probably let her go ahead in a queue, have her some priority for something, etc. That was a person with common sense and decency, not asking "why do queues exist", who doesn't do something only if there's a law about it.
I’m several inches over 6’ and if I don’t get a fire exit seat I’m highly likely to get seated behind someone who will call me “extremely rude” for wrangling uncomfortably and bumping their seat uncontrollably when they inevitably decide that extra 6 degrees of recline is worth more than my knee cartilage.
People generally didn’t even offer her a seat on the metro. And letting other people decide whether you should be permitted to use the functionality the airline has given you is dysfunctional people pleasing.
Your "dysfunctional people pleasing" is someone else's "not being a total dick". As I said, there's no law against it. It's all about character and education (or lack thereof). Some people even think they must brag about it because why else would they have a mouth and keyboard.
I still see ashtrays on older plans, trains, and boats. Sometimes older stuff is left there because it's not financially advantageous to replace it. You can use the recline button to your liking, but it can be inconsiderate to do it. Traveler discretion is advised.
A question you can always ask yourself is "should I do it just because I can do it?". It will stop you from being needlessly inconsiderate many times, and maybe even make you a better person.
It's the 21st century. Blowhards of the world united with the miracle of technology are moaning at any attempt of common sense regulation. This will become culture wars material right away.
I think the secret of Ryanair is that their goal is actually to make their turnarounds as fast and efficient as possible, not explicitly to make money by adding a fee for every little aspect of the service.
If anything can possibly slow down flight boarding, disembarking or cleanup, they'll first try to remove it completely, and only if people object too much will they reluctantly offer it with a fee.
Pocket on the seat back -> most people don't use on short flights -> get rid of them.
Luggage -> most people need this, but not everyone -> charge a fee.
Reclining seat -> most people don't use on short flights -> get rid of them.
They do sell drinks and duty free; that's an interesting one. I guess once the flight is airborne, the flight attendants aren't really doing anything else (from management's perspective) so they might as well sell stuff. Plus the trolley blocking the aisle stops passengers from moving around, which they probably see as a big advantage.
I think this even applies to the ridiculous penalty fees they charge for e.g. trying to check in at the airport rather than doing it beforehand on the app. It feels like they're just trying to rip you off, but I suspect they see it more as a "nudge" to make people check in online, because that streamlines their airport process.
I got a little bit less annoyed by them when I realised this. Sure, it's still uncomfortable and sometimes infuriating, but it's all with the aim of an efficient and reliable service, and they're way better than average at that.
> It feels like they're just trying to rip you off, but I suspect they see it more as a "nudge" to make people check in online, because that streamlines their airport process.
I believe the airline pays the airport for every check in and luggage handling transaction. They are just cutting costs.
Ryanair makes little to no money from passengers, nowadays it's mainly from selling airplanes.
They were still profitable during COVID without even carrying passengers at some point, only thanks to their flying school, which thanks to social dumping and the UE, allow them to charge 40k€ per wannabe pilot without even guaranteeing them a hire.
They booked 2000 737max, with their own special version during COVID+MCAS disaster, they paid it dirt cheap.
Then they operate them marginally, and now that the traffic has gone up again and the delay between buying and receiving a Max is about 8 years, they sell them back for a huge profit.
Do you have a link for that? It sounds interesting but a bit unlikely. It's hard to see how charging for pilot training, even at 40K a pop, would be a sustainable business.
The thing about buying planes is also interesting, but sounds like a sneaky business move rather than the actual foundation of the business.
I've always heard that nobody really makes money from passengers, which is why airlines are always going bankrupt, and I'm sure Ryanair's margins are super skinny. But even so, it does seem like moving passengers around is the core of their business, rather than it just being a front for something else.
Reclining seats are more expensive and heavier. The target customer for a low cost flight is cost sensitive and more resistant to "punishment". The expense would be hard to recuperate.
This one surprises me every time I fly. When I have the aisle seat I can be up and out in 10 seconds. It seems to make like everyone else will plop down , place down 3 different liquids on the tray and then take a nap. When I ask to use the bathroom I end up feeling like a nuisance
> When I ask to use the bathroom I end up feeling like a nuisance
It's your right to ask to use the bathroom whenever you need. And others have the right to use that little tray for their stuff when they want. (while allowed by the airline, of course)
Yup, it's their right, as it's their right to crank their seat back. Both are available, and expected. I see some take issue with people doing them at all, but I don't really mind much. Might be related to being 180cm or so - about 5"11, when most complaining seem to be larger.
My issue on my original post isn't really them moving the seat, but the lack of notice. It would have taken barely a second to lean over the seat and let me know. But I suspect they didn't even think about how that might affect anyone else.
It would be kinda crazy if someone didn't say they wanted to get out to the aisle and just started trying to climb over you with no warning.
I actually quite liek yanair's no frills no recline design. For some reason it feels less clusterphobic to me. it just feels more spacious and roomy, despite the absence of space.
I feel to be consistent the output of that model will also be under that same open license.
I can see this being extremely limiting in training data, as only "compatible" licensed data would be possible to package together to train each model.
The psychology behind "creating it for the sake of creating it" can also be significantly changed by seeing someone then take it and monetize it without so much as a "thank you".
It's come up quite often even before AI when people released things under significantly looser licenses than they really intended and imagined them being used.
reply