Renaming a Bluetooth device like a speaker permanently for everyone (as opposed to a nickname you give it in your phone or whatever) is difficult if possible at all and usually requires firmware or hardware changes, unless the option is given by the device or its companion app (which is very rare).

So your assumption seems the most likely. I highly doubt a 16 year old kid is firmware hacking a cheap speaker just to rename it for a "joke"

It’s commonplace for Bluetooth speakers to allow changing their Wi-Fi name (SSID) using the related app. Everyone being able to identify each other’s Bluetooth speakers is exactly one purpose of that.

Bluetooth speakers don’t typically have WiFi or SSIDs. The Bluetooth advertising name is changeable on some newer higher end devices, but the vast majority of cheap speakers do not implement this from a practical standpoint. Changing the name on your device only changes the alias that you see, at least on most devices, but it might be possible to hook that on some OSs ?

An, sorry, yes, I confused with Wi-Fi for some reason. Nevertheless, they allow changing the name they broadcast, in the sense that other devices that see it for the first time see the changed name.

Again, very rarely. Highly unlikely this particular one does.

It seems like some newer speakers allow it. I really wanna know what speaker he actually had.

Who uses those gas and oil repositories? Who drills it out and refines it? Who invests in it? Who uses this distributed wealth and how?

The point here is that human labor is the economic engine and without it, things like this cease to exist or matter.

This is the "whole thing" in a nutshell for me too. It's useful, speeds some things up, but I've been doing this a long time.

The state-of-the-art or medium-term future of the tooling doesn't feel apocalyptic in itself, but the macro forces, implications of scaling, and general reactions to it on all sides are a different story.

It's apocalyptic to the people who previously clocked in, did mediocre work, and clocked out. For those of us willing to put in a little effort, it's just another tool. Though I think there's still a disconnect at the managerial level where they think firing half the team and giving the rest AI is going to 10x revenue.

On average Steven Pinker is at best a fake hyperoptimist-by-aggregate who puts billionaires on pedestals and rewrites history to entrench shitty systems. Sometimes he says smart stuff but he ignores or actively disregards massive problems with a painfully self-serving neutrality.

Here's a source from 2019 that says: "By 2023, the number of knowledge workers in the world will increase to 1.14 billion, with more than four-fifths of that growth coming from the emerging world."

https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/09-24-201...

Thank you for validating my point.

> "...with more than four-fifths of that growth coming from the emerging world."

If anyone thinks this is a part of the global TAM that's got $1000 a month to blow, well then I've got a stable of flying unicorns to sell you.

You can still centrally manage Macs? Look at every tech company.

Yeah, but can schools do what even tech companies struggle with/cobble together here?

Macs are very popular in schools today for teachers and staff. Switching to Macbook Neos for students would actually simplify their support burden. I'm not sure they'd be cost justified though.

Source: My wife works IT for our school district.

Reddit r/k12sysadmin disagrees. Sure, as always there will some that will switch to Apple. Why not. Some even have MS.

What do you think schools do currently?

"The government" is the same as those lobbying the government. The people in the government get paid to push it, so they push it, and get paid more when it goes through, by the people who want that PII to analyze.

#0 Is what William James described as consciousness not being a separate substance, but a set of relations within experience itself:

> Consciousness connotes a kind of external relation, and does not denote a special stuff or way of being. The peculiarity of our experiences, that they not only are, but are known, which their 'conscious' quality is invoked to explain, is better explained by their relations — these relations themselves being experiences — to one another.

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the vast difference? Who's doing more of what, or whatever you're implying? And how do you quantify this?

The people who use AI to the maximum learn more.

A neutral hobbyist on a $20 budget will build something and immediately bump into quotas. Its not going to be an enjoyable experience.

A negatively predisposed pro who only dabbles in AI gets to the first disappointment, smiles, and thinks "yeah, about what i expected" and quits.

To learn those new tools one needs to not be stingy. Invest as much as needed into tokens, subscriptions, and maybe most importantly invest the time. Spend time building various things. Try out various models not just for coding, but as part of apps being built. For bonus points, meaningfully experiment with local models. I try to avoid discussions with sceptics who have not put at least a few months of effort into learning those tools. It's like discussing driving with my mother in law, who spent maybe 20hrs behind the wheel through her whole life (and is very, very opinionated!).

And it's not a waste of money because?

You'd have learned something new. Useful, not useful, thorough understanding of a new thing is rewarding.

Also, its not primarily about money - the real investment here is time.

In my opinion it's a complete waste of time and money to learn something that is gated by a company that might disappear tomorrow.

It's akin to company courses to learn something that is specific to that company. Of course you do them on the job, there is no point in doing them if you don't work there.

Similarly what's the point of trying 300 different models if any job will decide for you which one they approve the use of, and you are liable to get fired and asked for damages if you let anything else access company intellectual property?

The difference is (if you'll forgive me recruiting a couple of straw men for the purpose of illustrating the spectrum we are talking about here):

Hobbyist solo dev, counting tokens, hitting quotas, trying things on little projects, giving up and not seeing what the fuss is about.

vs

Corporate developer, increasingly held accountable by their boss for hitting metrics for token usage; being handed every new model as soon as it comes out; working with the tools every day on code changes that impact other developers on other teams all of whom have access to those same tools.

Okay, so just to be clear you're not commenting on productivity? Or what does "changes that impact" mean?

I might be missing a lot of self-evident assumptions here but I feel like I'm still missing so much context and have no idea what this difference is actually describing.

If you have some objective measure of productivity in mind, feel free to share it, but no that's not what I'm commenting on.

I'm talking more about why threads like this seem to be full of people saying 'this has completely changed how corporate development works' and other people saying 'I tried it a few times and I don't get the hype'

An invoice/receipt is often necessary for booking purposes, reimbursements, taxes, etc. But to your point, just put it in the same email as the tracking number and move on.

Well not every company automatically generates a label on purchase so they have to come separately unless you want to wait a day for your receipt.