You probably have slack signed in on your iPhone and that iPhone shares a personal account with your Mac. Most of the data they have on me seems to be meta data from push notifications that exist on my phone.
> considering the start of this a while ago was the fear that Apple would scan your entire photo library without consent, I feel like this is fair trade.
The first is that since they were going to implement a much more intrusive approach but halted due to incredible backlash from users and the tech community it’s OK that they now implement a much less intrusive approach.
> It makes sense that the quite literal public link, open to anyone, is also accessible to Apple.
The second is that a publicly accessible link is very much not the same as “open to anyone”, the link itself is the knowledge gate required to access the data.
Let’s say I use iCloud and need to share my tax documents with my accountant who doesn’t use iPhone/Mac. I turn on public link sharing temporarily with the knowledge that only people who have the link could access it, thereby still being secure so long as neither party is careless in their distribution of the link.
My expectation as a user is that only those with the exact link can view my tax documents. But as it stands, Apple is now using their privileged position as iCloud administrator to unencrypt my file and scan it simply because the link is stored in their database.
The alternative is to only share a link with individuals you grant access to.
> When you share content that’s stored in iCloud, such as a photo in iCloud Photos or a file in iCloud Drive, you can choose to Share a Link or Send a Copy of the item. If you choose Share a Link, you can either share the item with “People you choose” — only people you invite or approve — or with “Anyone with the link," which makes it accessible to anyone who has the link, including Apple.
> My expectation as a user is that only those with the exact link can view my tax documents
Security through obscurity has never worked. Access control lists do.
> Let’s say I use iCloud and need to share my tax documents with my accountant who doesn’t use iPhone/Mac.
iCloud photo albums can be shared to an email address - the recipient does not need to have an account with Apple. I don't know offhand what the user experience is on the receiving end, but there's a clearly signposted way of doing this, and it doesn't require the album to be set as public.
It’s pretty stupid to say that you publicly share a document, accessible to anyone, but that you hope that a single person will be able to access it.
If you sent that link through WhatsApp, they access it to generate a preview (and who knows what else?). Same for any number of other services.
iCloud, like all other file distribution services, make absolutely no distinction between publicly accessible and publicly distributed. Not should they. They are distributing it… publicly.
Top spec build is $29,799 + tx. While local AI is certainly an enticing prospect I can’t really imagine myself ever seeing a return on that investment.
Further they’ve already begun hyping the M7 Ultra and even if that got delayed until 2028, this machine only being SOTA for 1.5yrs is a hilariously short window in which to maximize your investment.
The 256GB M5 Ultra Mac Studio can (AFAIK) run the latest open weight Flash models but only 2 bit quant. This by extension will be able to do 4 and that's a big difference. We're not at the point of running 1T+ parameter models locally yet but we'll be there by 2030 easily.
I personally believe that local LLMs have a huge captive market for people who cannot or should not host that data with a third-party. For example, it's an open question of whether or not using cloud LLMs by lawyers breaks attorney-client privilege. HIPAA with medical records is another one.
But I want to expound on one point that you made, which is really important. You say that this spec only has a SOTA life of ~1.5 years and that's an issue. Take that to its natural conclusion. Why isn't it an issue for hyperscalar data centers, particularly as NVidia wants to move to annual chip updates.
I believe the hardware is going to be commoditized. At that point the only thing that matters is performance-per-Watt. NVidia's R100/200 doesn't make the B100/200 obsolete but if the R series gets 50-100% PPW more and these DCs are using gigawatts of power, that's a massive difference.
What on earth is a "natural conclusion" in this context? I'm going to assume that part of your comment was written by AI.
> Why isn't it an issue for hyperscalar data centers, particularly as NVidia wants to move to annual chip updates.
Because he's not a hyperscaler? He's not operating data centers where compute is fungible, he's buying an individual machine that he wants to use for years. He can't just keep buying a new machine and fob off the old one to someone else's less demanding workload.
Enterprise GPUs have a lot longer effective life than these consumer chips (although even the old 3090s are reasonably useful, especially with the recent driver unlock tech). I'd argue that these consumer chips have only now gotten to the memory capacity/processing capacity to make local LLM use actually reasonable.
Enthusiasts generally don't see a "return on investment" on their luxury cars or their boats either, but they enjoy what they're able to do with them and aren't exactly embarassed about the class signaling of being a high spender.
Add to that the smattering people with genuinely justifiable use cases, and you have more than enough demand for a limit-pushing, highest-margin model of your product platform.
I'd be willing to spend that much if it unlocked the ability to run top-of-the-line open weight models at their best quantization at a decent enough speed for personal agentic use. We're clearly not there yet, and I just can't imagine dropping the price of a brand new car on something that will only get me heavily quantized versions of the smaller models.
What’s your use case for cellular on a laptop? At least here in Canada data plans are expensive enough that I could blow through my monthly limit in 30min with a laptop. I would be quite annoyed if my wifi dropped and I had discovered only later that I’d exhausted my data unknowingly
So the customer alleges they grabbed their biometrics but the article doesn’t state why they seem sure. Unless it auto unlocked the contents for him on the next delivery when his face came into view it’s unclear to me why he seems confident.
Well he just « overhauled » them… which I’m going to interpret as laying off a bunch who didn’t flag this to him earlier. If you just got hired by a billionaire who fired everyone on the prior team for not catching something, and is paying you to be brutally accurate are you going to order 1 biopsy? 2?
One gives you a high potential for false positives or negatives, two data points with opposite results is just as useless. Three is the gold standard to create a consensus among sensors, a lesson Boeing learned with their angle of attack at the cost of many lives.
> He publicly shares everything about his lifestyle and routine rather than paywalling them, so if he is running a scam, he probably needs some pointers
Disagree. What he does is run a YouTube channel that appears to do that. That makes it an ideal vehicle to advertise supplements with little research or scientific backing to an uninformed and trusting audience.
Each day the stock market likely moves his NW more than the ARR of his supplement company.
Again, if he is trying to run a supplement scam with an NW north of $1B, he needs some pointers. Dude could announce an AI startup tomorrow and get more funding than any of his current companies would make in a lifetime.
Ehh, you’re giving the guy a lot of grace cause he’s rich. I believe the GP was correct and have anecdotal evidence to support that he may be deceptive.
I followed him very loosely 3 years back and he was touting the effectiveness of a hair dye that he claimed permanently restored hair color at the follicle level if you followed their prescribed routine. As in no more greys, permanently. The company was called Mayraki and nobody had ever heard of them before Bryan’s videos and while I’m not saying he was scamming, I find it likely something dubious was going on with a high likely hood of him being paid for this advertising.
He went as far as saying he had his medical team biopsy his scalp and found the hair was not grey below the skin line so therefore was 100% true. It was quite a convincing narrative at the time to try this $100 hair dye.
The internet, especially Reddit, is now full of angry people with grey hair (and less money) that claim this product didn’t do anything beyond a regular dye but for 5-6x the cost. I can attest to this myself.
The article seems to be a meta analysis of a bunch of conflicting research to support a narrative that we don’t really know shit.
And fair, we don’t.
But a couple of things we do know that weren’t covered - egregiously so - is that aging is UV damage. Sometimes called photoaging, wrinkles, sun spots, discoloration, fine lines, grey hair, all of that shit that you associate with someone visibly looking old is sun damage.
So the picture that the article paints of some pasty nerds in offices shielding themselves from all UV and thus: they might as well be smoking… it doesn’t even touch on why people might be doing this.
Both kurgezadt and veritasium did some really great videos on photoaging and it’s worth checking out if this is new information to you.
I often embarrass my daughter when she has some new friend over. If the topic comes up, I give a demonstration. I'm 62 and I've never tried to get a tan and work indoors, and I haven't had a serious sunburn in close to 40 years. On the other hand, I lived spent the last 20 years in Austin, TX. I mow the yard and I ride a bike and in the summer months I put on sunblock before doing the bike rides an sometimes mowing.
The exposed parts of my arms look like I'm 62 -- freckles, some age spots, the skin has lost a lot of elasticity. But then I roll up my T-shirt sleeve to expose my shoulder and my skin is like it was when I was 25: not just pale, but no freckles, no age spots, still supple.
the culprit is not the sun-- but overdoing it. If you overdrink water, it is fatal, too.
The sun is responsible for benefiting over 200 processes in the body. And you don't need to be out in the sun all day to get the benefits (if your job does not demand it).
Pro golfers look a good 10-20 years older than their real age sometimes fwiw. In contrast to most other pro athletes in indoor disciplines who generally look better than their age. There's also examples of truckers who spent most of their career with the window rolled down and you can tell straight up what side of the road they drove on.
I first took sun exposure seriously after backpacking and spending time with other young travellers in hostels. It was apparent who spent their time exposed to the sun, I remember a girl my age who was in the middle of a multi-year cycle tour, and although I envied her journey, her skin looked quite rough. I decided that if I ended up doing that, I'd get one of those cycle helmet brim visors and would probably just cover my face during a lot of the riding portions.
Then I met a man who did kayak tours of a city. He was awesome, but really leathery due to the 20 years in a boat without shade and having the UV reflections off the water. Your skin cancer risk is off the charts at that point.
After my first few months there I realized that the people who didn't look like an old leather bag wore long sleeve shirts and big hats pretty much constantly.
Those drivers don't even need to have the window rolled down as far as I know. That's because most door auto glass lets UVA rays through and that's what causes premature aging. If you want to block those UVA rays, you would need to apply some kind of additional film to the side window.
There’s plenty, though please evaluate the veracity of their claims for yourself, I’m not a scientist nor do I excel at parsing scientific articles. Here’s one I’ve come across after a few minutes which references many others https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10111...
If hair greying was mostly caused by UV damage, I would expect that the pattern of greying would be even, and begin on the top of the head.
In contrast (based on my own unscientific observations!) greying typically begins in small areas, and often on the temples - not what I'd expect if caused by UV damage.
When most people think of age-related hair greying (which you referenced in your original post), they think of the phenomenon whereby hair follicles stop producing pigments that colour hair.
This is distinct from UV bleaching of the pigments in the hair.
I'd rather look old than be one of those lunatics who goes for a summer walk in a longsleeve shirt, gloves, and a hat with built-in veil (a pretty common sight in the Bay Area)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
reply