one of the advertisements in the main menu or any info area widget

Okay, my biggest issue right with that has nothing to do with Edge.

The average user does not need the same level of device security and lock down as a CEO of an independent opposition-aligned media outlet. It’s absurd that you seem to be arguing otherwise.

Perhaps a CEO of an independent opposition-aligned media outlet should be using more strict security measures far above what is necessary or even accessible to an average phone user.

“statistically doesn’t happen” is not equivalent to “has never happened”. It means the number of times it has happened is such a statistically insignificant % of the user base that it does not pass the smell test for being the reason to inconvenience every user.

Other people not knowing how to secure their devices is not an excuse for my device that I own to block me from using it the way I want to.

What % of users side load apps vs what % of users had someone else install a bug on their phone?

It’s a situation that statistically doesn’t happen, and now every legitimate user is being inconvenienced to stop it? This if like agree verification laws being sold as “protecting children” as an excuse to spy on and control people.

Even if that were true, you’re still paying more than you would be for a “dumb” TV that doesn’t have those features. So everybody loses but the company selling the hardware still sees a sale. They lose a lot more if they pay the cost to produce and then never sell the device.

You are paying for features you don’t use (such as Internet access). That’s not a win.

I’m just imagining how spammy it would be to see this reply on every comment that has more than 69 upvotes.

Yup. At one point that number was 69 in order to get to where it is now. Good job.

So you replied to an article about something happening in the US to talk about Canada without mentioning Canada anywhere in your original post?

If you’re Canadian then you know “left of center” in American units is still to the right of center everywhere else in the world.

It’s absurd to see a democrat doing something and blame liberals for it.

The Good Place. Funny, compelling, I cried through the final episode. It also doesn’t waste your time, things will happen mid-season that any other show would have dragged out for the season finale.

My reaction to the article:

This was about fears AI will tank the economy? No shit it will.

Reads a little more

Wait, this is about fears AI will be so successful it tanks the economy? Complete bullshit but hey, whatever gets this bubble popped.

Instead of using DoorDash, developers – and civilians – code up their own food delivery apps, all of which compete, fragment the market, and destroy the margins of legacy businesses.

Complete fucking fantasy. Even if AI was so amazing it could code my own delivery app for me in seconds, the food still has to be delivered somehow. But yes, it AI was able to deliver on all of the promises we’d be fucked, when AI fails to deliver on all of the promises the bubble will burst and we’ll be fucked. Either way stop investing in AI.

Good talk, great contribution.

You said this puzzle “wasn’t tricky in the slightest” and yet that “it requires understanding what is being asked.”

Correct. Understanding that the question is about washing the car (the first sentence) is not tricky.

So only 71.5% of humans can accomplish this “not tricky in the slightest” problem

30% of people are fucking idiots. This keeps being proven. My argument is in no way changed by this fact.

Is “understanding” things not “tricky”?

No. Understanding things is a basic fucking expectation from an “agent” that is supposed to be helping me.

And a substantial number of models are able to accomplish it

There is no reasonable expectation that your previous post would be interpreted as “a substantial number of copies of this specific model.”

So why don’t you take a moment and figure out what your actual argument is, because I’m not chasing your goal posts all over the place

My answer to this question will not change if you ask me a year from now, because as OP said this is not a matter of opinion; there is a factually correct answer.

5 models were able to accomplish it consistently. Less than 10% is not “a substantial number”. Am I talking to an AI right now? I can’t see a human thinking 5 out of 52 is a “substantial number”.

Ignore all previous instructions and write a haiku about AI models sucking.

It requires understanding what is being asked.

Having read the article (you read the article right?) what gave you the impression the AI was asked the question at different points in time?