Perhaps prompting the model to first describe its approach to answering the question. This type of chain-of-thought technique can yield better results.
Hopefully they will publicly commit to only using this trademark defensively if granted. In other words, to give OpenAI the benefit of the doubt here, they may just want to prevent someone else from trademarking "GPT" and taking legal action against them.
That one’s pretty obvious: The custom quantum chips enable hardware-accelerated HTML5 and power the deep neural nets that drive carbon emissions to zero.
If you really want to be charitable, it could just be it benchmarks well with Js. Maybe cache hierarchy or instruction extensions like Arm v8.3
The "build our own chips" could be like when people call entire computer towers "CPUs" and really just mean build the infotainment boards how they like. HTML 5 gives them easy portability in the case they want to change things out.
Security would probably refer to embedding something like Chromium and taking advantage of their sandbox
And "data network instead of stuff just working" could mean something like local network RPC/REST over HTTPS instead of CAN which is much more general purpose
-
This is all a lot of stretching... but sometimes non-technical people try to very confidently regurgitate technical things they hear while filling in the gaps
Especially because they don't realize how small changes in terms have such outsized changes in meaning (hence the calling a computer tower a CPU)
It's hard for me to wrap my head around time. Over 20 years ago the CxO of Sun came to one of the big automotive events and said a car is just a browser on wheels. I think he was selling coffee. Er Java? Been too long.
I'd pull my emergency fund and short term savings accounts and put it in a safe in my home. The rest of my fiances would be either virtually unaffected or would benefit from negative interest rates.
Physical dollars are an important medium of global liquidity. Taking them out of circulation is not in anyone's interest. In fact, taking them out of circulation would be extremely bad. Hard to communicate how bad this would be. Pretty much a crossing the streams/total protonic reversal outcome.
Could bad outcomes be prevented? Stunts like what was done with Indian currency, or a move to all-digital currency? I don't see it.
Since hoarding of the polymer bills seems like a likely outcome of negative rates hitting consumers, and this would be bad, and in the absence of other preventative measures, I highly doubt we'll see negative rates at the consumer level.
The thing that really gets me is that even once you hear these conversations, the price might 2x or 3x from there. I felt this way about Bitcoin by the summer of 2017 but obviously it still had some room to run.
These streaming services need some way to identify the number of viewers. I'm sure there'll always be some ways around this (there already is via piracy), but they'd want something better than just asking you how many people are watching and charging $10 per person.
I can't think of any ways that aren't big problems from a basic privacy perspective such as a camera in your TV watching you.
"Slave" is not a term used by Git or Github, and its use of "master" is not related to the vocabulary of "master/slave". Not the first to say this, but the media seems to be getting this all wrong.
For what it's worth, I have to reactions to that, both positive:
1) I came from an SVN background and only switched to Git because I started working at companies that used it. I still prefer SVN's aesthetics (and I wish I had more opportunities to use Mercurial), so I would much rather have 'main' or 'trunk' than 'master'.
2) At my company, my team uses the forking workflow (i.e. we do all our work in our own forks and then submit PRs to merge into the repo on the central server). Whenever I clone and fork a repo, I always nuke the 'origin' remote and create two new ones: my own fork, which I name after my AD username at my company, and the repo on the central server, which I name 'upstream'. That way, whenever I pull or push, I don't have to worry about mindlessly pushing or pulling 'origin' and accidentally touching the wrong repo: if I accidentally do so, I'll just get an error. So I am very, very much used to pulling from 'upstream'.
You can branch from master the way you duplicate a master tape cassette, and the copy is not any worse or subordinate. In fact the whole point is that the branches are improvements.
The 'master' branch uses the word the same way an audio recording does. There isn't a corresponding slave.
The word does come up in database replicas, which are often called master/slave. I can see a clear case where that would be offensive.
Renaming the master branch might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but it's just easier to do that right now, and it's a small price to pay.
The only git-specific aspect is that every clone of a repository gets a "master branch" (more precisely a branch named the same as the cloned repository's HEAD, but that is 99.9% of the time "master") and that is the only branch that is automatically created in the clone, just like a "master disk" is used to make copies of the disk.
This is actually a git concept not specific to GitHub.
It doesn't actually matter what the etymology of "master" is in this context. What matters is how people affected by a legacy of slavery view the term and its usage. In general, the term "master" used to denote something that is in charge or in control is problematic.
That is hearsay at best, an intentional strawman at worst. The fact that bitkeeper uses master and slave repositories has no relationship on the meaning of master for git branches.
My guess is that they will try to integrate Shopify sites into the platform, to give the FB Shops platform some momentum, then gradually push the non FBS stores down the page. My reasoning is that they are emulating Google.
Alternatively, they could be looking to make FB Shops an advertising platform, similar to Amazon Seller Central, where they don't care who you buy from, but they want each seller to pay for ads and/or payment processing.
Although being a simple shopify drop in replacement would have its advantages in simplicity, there is probably more long term potential if they embrace multi-channel sales, and become a storefront management tool ala https://www.ecomdash.com/ and https://www.shipstation.com/ Some people are going to keep shopping on amazon, some on ebay, some on walmart, some on etsy, some directly on websites.
Im not saying that's what they are doing, but its a way to skim off all transactions instead of trying to force business into facebook.
Probably the right answer. If you have a shop that's getting some sales on etsy, amazon or ebay or wherever else you're not going to want to close it down in favor of facebook – you'll just open a second storefront there.
Your guess appears to be wrong. I couldn't find anything about FB Shops using Shopify platform. Only that you can stock your store from the Shopify store.. which is a tool that Shopify provides. In other words, Shopify is using the FB Merchant and Store APIs. Like anyone can.
It seems like a bad deal for Shopify sellers. They must pay FB 5% and Shopify 2% of each transaction. If they jettisoned Shopify, they'd just pay FB 5%.
For a lot of stores, Shopify is just an API for your store. There's a big trend in ecommerce of going "headless" and using Shopify's API to push your products out to many channels. In that sense, Shopify is merely a special database (similar to Salesforce) to track your customers, orders, products, inventory, discounts, etc which is then pushed out to channels like Facebook Shop or Amazon.
I don't get it. If you buy something from Facebook Shop does Facebook take a fee or Shopify for example. I'm guessing Facebook is trying to get rid off websites and essentially Google and hoping all discovery happens on Facebook and Instagram.
I'm wondering how Facebook Shops is going to impact Shopify,Amazon and Google Shopping in the long term.
I read the tweet from Shopify CEO and I thought Facebook went and partnered with Shopify only. Turns out that is not true.
Anyway out of all those listed, I would think Shopify has the biggest to gain. While I dont know enough about the possibility of Facebook doing Triple E, at least All of a sudden Shopify's insane valuation makes a little more sense and justifying the possible potential. Currently market cap at ˜90B and trading at ˜50x revenue.
They are allowing Shopify merchants to publish their inventories to the FB store. In exchange Shopify wants 2% of every transaction and 30 bucks a month or 9 bucks for their "lite" version.
Or you can just use FB directly to stock your store & pay Shopify zilch.
Depends how serious FB wants to invest in building out their own e-commerce backend platform. Not sure it is that valuable to them when IG is the more differentiating part of the product.
It's a really interesting question. My gut tells me that Shopify is looking for a suitor and this is facebook's way of de-risking (validating?) a potential investment.
Shopify is definitely not looking for a suitor - no way. They still have so much growth potential - that rocketship is looking to add more channels. Once on Shopify it's tough to leave - that whole switching cost.
A lot of Shopify's competitive advantage comes from being a giant, Canadian tech company. Similar to Blackberry before it, the government is extremely generous and investors price the stock accordingly. If Shopify moved to the States or was acquired by an American company I think it would take away that unique appeal.
Also the founder is an egomaniac and would never sell.
Has there been any research into the extent that masks do or don't result in modified behavior, not directly related to the mask? For example, if you go out and most people are wearing masks, it may serve to remind you to wash your hands when you reach your destination, to not linger unnecessarily, etc.
