Gemini 3 is crushing my personal evals for research purposes.
I would cancel my ChatGPT sub immediately if Gemini had a desktop app and may still do so if it continues to impress my as much as it has so far and I will live without the desktop app.
I would personally settle for a web app that isn't slow. The difference in speed (latency, lag) between ChatGPT's fast web app and Gemini's slow web app is significant. AI Studio is slightly better than Gemini, but try pasting in 80k tokens and then typing some additional text and see what happens.
Genuinely curious here: why is the desktop app so important?
I completely understand the appeal of having local and offline applications, but the ChatGPT desktop app doesn't work without an internet connection anyways. Is it just the convenience? Why is a dedicated desktop app so much better than just opening a browser tab or even using a PWA?
Also, have you looked into open-webui or Msty or other provider-agnostic LLM desktop apps? I personally use Msty with Gemini 2.5 Pro for complex tasks and Cerebras GLM 4.6 for fast tasks.
(1) The ability to add context via a local apps integration into OS level resources is big. With Claude, eg, I hit Option-SPC which brings up a prompt bar. From there, taking a screenshot that will get sent my prompt is as simple as dragging a bounding box. This is great. Beyond that, I can add my own MCP connectors and give my desktop app direct access to relevant context in a way that doesn't work via web UI. It may also be inconvenient to give context to a web UI in some case where, eg, I may have a folder of PDFs I want it to be able to reference.
(2) Its own icon that I can CMD-TAB to is so much nicer. Maybe that works with a PWA? Not really sure.
(3) Even if I can't use an LLM when offline, having access to my chats for context has been repeatedly valuable to me.
I haven't looked at provider-agnostic apps and, TBH, would be wary of them.
> The ability to add context via a local apps integration into OS level resources is big
Good point. I can see why integrated support for local filesystem tools would be useful, even though I prefer manually uploading specific files to avoid polluting the context with irrelevant info.
> Its own icon that I can CMD-TAB to is so much nicer
Fair enough. I personally prefer Firefox's tab organization to my OS's window organization, but I can see how separating the LLM into its own window would be helpful.
> having access to my chats for context has been repeatedly valuable to me.
I didn't at all consider this. Point ceded.
> I haven't looked at provider-agnostic apps and, TBH, would be wary of them.
Interesting. Why? Is it security? The ones I've listed are open source and auditable. I'm confident that they won't steal my API keys. Msty has a lot of advanced functionality that I haven't seen in other interfaces like allowing you to compare responses between different LLMs, export the entire conversation to Markdown, and edit the LLM's response to manage context. It also sidesteps the problem of '[provider] doesn't have a desktop app' because you can use any provider API.
> Good point. I can see why integrated support for local filesystem tools would be useful, even though I prefer manually uploading specific files to avoid polluting the context with irrelevant info.
Access to OS level resources != context pollution. You still have control, just more direct and less manual.
> The ones I've listed are open source and auditable.
Yeah I don't plan on spending who knows how much time auditing some major app's code (lol) before giving it my API keys and access to my chats. Unless there's a critical mass of people I know and trust using something like that it's not going to happen for me.
But also, I tried quickly looking up Msty to see if it is open source and what its adoption looked like and AFAICT it's not open source. Asked Gemini 3 if it was and it also said no. Frankly that makes it a very hard no for me. If you are using it because you think it's Open Source I suggest you stop.
American cheese is just cheese with an emulsifier, sodium citrate, added that makes it so that it doesn’t break when melted.
At most it adds a slight amount of acidity and makes for a very attractive melting property. There’s not really anything disgusting about it for most people because most people find its melting properties to be a positive.
Hating American cheese is an affect people adopt for the same reason people adopt an affect of hating mayo: certain cultural elements tell them to.
The technical definition of American cheese is that.
In practice, unless you are going to look specifically for it, Kraft, Velveeta et. al. are more than happy to sell you "American cheese product" which does not meet FDA standards for labeling for American cheese, and in practice a lot of people criticizing American cheese are actually criticizing cheese product, which is what is super easy to find both in American supermarkets and abroad.
Europeans also generally take offense at some of the stuff in American supermarkets that has implied labeling like European cheese, like the powdered Kraft Parmesan.
Unless you are buying the absolute cheapest package of cheese slices it will still be real cheese. I'm not even sure if I've ever even seen a Kraft or Valveeta sliced cheese product, only lesser no-name brands. I've been am American all my life and do not buy process cheese product as it does take like plastic, but actual American cheese is delicious on burgers and grilled cheeses and a few other select meals.
What's crazy is Europe allowing 5% non-milk-fat/vegetable fat products to be called "ice cream". Thankfully in America it has to be 10% milkfat at least.
You are looking at the wrong product. This one[0] does say "American cheese" as a single phrase. And the slices are not individually wrapped, as they don't need to be.
Kraft Singles and their Velveeta equivalent are what is available abroad, not the Kraft Deli Deluxe. 40 percent of American households in 2019 bought Kraft Singles.
You may not like it, but it is the public face of American cheese.
There’s no data to suggest that actual fancier American cheese sells more than heavily marketed slices, especially since a huge chunk of the remaining population, and I would say most, is not consuming either “American cheese” or “American cheese product” with sodium citrate.
Wait so when Europeans complain about American cheese, they are talking about Kraft/Velveeta? I always thought of those as their own independent thing, do they not purchase their cheese at the deli? Most foods exported across the Atlantic are not going to be the fresh kind...
They purchase European cheeses given that most American cheese types are descended from European cheeses; cheddar is English and blue is descended from English Stilton.
Your reply doesn't answer my question and seems to imply things I can't understand. Are you suggesting people in Europe simply use the same kind of cheese with everything? I find that hard to believe. Perhaps you have never bought cheese at a deli? There happen to be many kinds.
Your last point is even more confusing, why would the fact that chedder and blue cheese originate from England have anything to do with this? It's like random trivia you interlaced here, it's very strange. I can't seem to grok it.
They don’t buy American cheese, the melty product. They actually don’t buy much American (of origin) cheese at all at their delis because American origin cheeses are all descended from the diverse array of European cheeses, and there are melty, non-sodium citrate European cheeses. So yes, the most common form of American cheese found is the Kraft/Velveeta variety and that is really mostly aimed at expats nostalgic for it.
Europe exports $2.8bn of dairy to the US. The reverse is only $167m of trade.
Considering how protective Europe is of it's markets I'm not surprised their dairy imports are small. They even treat town/village names as a kind of trademark to facilitate this, leading to much confusion (I will die on this hill right next to them).
I've tried many kinds of the imported European cheese, I enjoy the variety and gimicky stuff, one noteworthy one was this coffee cheese which was surprisingly tasty. Ultimately it sits right next to an equally diverse array of domestic cheese brands which are of the same quality. "New York Steakhouse" usually makes my favorites.
However Kraft and Velveeta are usually in their own section with the sealed imported cold cuts that taste like plastic. It would be ignorant for me to judge Euros on those but I guess many Euros do exactly that when they see Kraft? It's like space food. Real cheese is purchased at the deli counter or in chunks.
It's very easy to make American cheese at home, and it happens to make the very best macaroni and cheese. As you say, mix some other cheese with sodium citrate dissolved in water. Cheddar works great. You'll get a nacho-sauce-like goop that you can pour onto your pasta (cavatappi or fusilli are best). Add in a caramelized onion and you'll never want to eat boxed mac & cheese again.
A good way to think about American Cheese is to consider if instead of it being a mass produced, highly available product, it was made by Thomas Keller and served in a dish at The French Laundry. Then we would call it “molecular gastronomy” and it would be a nice littler touch to some dish.
I assume that first refusal required price matching. If the $250B is at a higher price than whatever AWS, GCP, etc. were willing to offer, then it could be a win for Microsoft to get $250B in decent margin business over a larger amount of break even business.
> Hard to say what a "longer period of time" means, but I presume it is substantial enough to make this a major concession from OpenAI.
Depends on how this is meant to be parsed but it may be parsed to be a concession from MSFT. If the total amount of revenue to be shared is the same, then MSFT is worse off here. If this is meant to parse as "a fixed proportion of revenue will be shared over X period and X period has increased to Y" then it is an OAI concession.
I don't know the details but I would be surprised if there was a revenue agreement that was time based.
Especially so if the Non-profit foundation doesn't retain voting control, this remains the greatest theft of all time. I still can't quite understand how it should at all be possible.
Looking at the changes for MSFT, I also mostly don't understand why they did it!
Nevermind, looks like the nn-profit gave up voting control lol:
"All equity holders in OpenAI Group now own the same type of traditional stock that participates proportionally and grows in value with OpenAI Group’s success. The OpenAI Foundation board of directors were advised by independent financial advisors, and the terms of the recapitalization were unanimously approved by the board."
Truly, truly the greatest theft from mankind in history and they dress it up as if the non-profit is doing anything other than giving away the most valuable startup in history for a paltry sum.
Credit where credit is due, Sam Altman is the greatest dealmaker of all time.
Will be interesting if we get to hear what his new equity stake is!
The non-profit controls the board of the for profit and can replace them at any time. They also serve in the for-profit board. This is according to the NY times article.
The nonprofit will own 26%, and a warrant that it will get more shares if the share price grows more than 10 times after 15 years. Sam Altman is getting no shares as part of this restructuring.
> The Magit experience is due to the use of the transient package for its UI.
(I'm the author of Magit and Transient. (Though not the original author of Magit.))
The transient menus certainly play an important role but I think other characteristics are equally important.
A few years ago I tried to provide an abstract overview of Magit's "interface concepts": https://emacsair.me/2017/09/01/the-magical-git-interface/. (If it sounds a bit like a sales pitch, that's because it is; I wrote it for the Kickstarter campain.)
This is my experience. While transient mode helped at the beginning for discovery. I learned fast the 10 things I use constantly, and never look the transient buffer. When I want to do something, I see the documentation, for me it is often easier than guessing and searching. Things like spin-off are absolutely gold.
Indeed! I went back just to mention it owes its incredible UX to the transient package, I am going to look up more uses for it. Do recommend more if you can, please!
Transient is the worst part about Magit IMO (the best parts are how you can prepare a commit to just include the right changes, or the functionality bound inside the transient menus that make complex operations such as fixups or rebases trivial). Transient UIs are consistently uncomfortable to work with, and could usually be replaced by just using a regular special-mode keymap in a custom buffer. The fact that Transient hooks into the MVC and breaks elementary navigation such as using isearch or switching around buffers has irritated me ever since Magit adopted the new interface.
The real neat thing about Emacs' text interface is that it is just text that you can consistently manipulate and interact with. It is precisely the fact that I can isearch, use Occur write out a region to a file, diff two buffers, use find-file-at-point, etc. that makes it so interesting to me at least.
A far more interesting example than Magit is the compile buffer (from M-x compile): This is just a regular text buffer with a specific major mode that highlights compiler errors so that you can follow them to the referenced files (thereby relegating line-numbers to an implementation detail that you don't have to show the user at all times). But you can also save the buffer, with the output from whatever the command was onto disk. If you then decide to re-open the buffer again at whatever point, it still all looks just as highlighted as before (where the point is not that it just uses color for it's own sake, but to semantically highlight what different parts of the buffer signify) and you can even just press "g" -- the conventional "revert" key -- to run the compile job again, with the same command as you ran the last time. This works because all the state is syntactically present in the file (from the file local variable that indicates the major mode to the error messages that Emacs can recognize), and doesn't have to be stored outside of the file in in-memory data structures that are lost when you close Emacs/reboot your system. The same applies to grepping btw, as M-x grep uses a major mode that inherits the compile-mode.
> Transient UIs [...] could usually be replaced by just using a regular special-mode keymap in a custom buffer.
For people who can look at a list of key bindings once and have them memorized, maybe. Turns out most people are not like that, and appreciate an interface that accounts for that.
You also completely ignore that the menus are used to set arguments to be used by the command subsequently invoked, and that the enabled/disabled arguments and their values can be remembered for future invocations.
> The fact that Transient hooks into the MVC and breaks elementary navigation such as using isearch
Not true. (Try it.) This was true for very early versions; it hasn't been true for years.
> or switching around buffers
Since you earlier said that transient menus could be replaced with regular prefix keys, it seems appropriate to point out that transient menus share this "defect" with regular prefix keys, see https://github.com/magit/transient/issues/17#issuecomment-46.... (Except that in the case of transient you actually can enable such buffer switching, it's just strongly discouraged because you are going to shoot yourself in the foot if you do that, but if you really want to you can, see https://github.com/magit/transient/issues/114#issuecomment-8....
> has irritated me ever since Magit adopted the new interface.
I usually do not respond to posts like this (anymore), but sometimes the urge is just too strong.
I have grown increasingly irritated by your behavior over the last few weeks. Your suggestion to add my cond-let* to Emacs had a list of things "you are doing wrong" attached. You followed that up on Mastodon with (paraphrasing) "I'm gonna stop using Magit because it's got a sick new dependency". Not satisfied with throwing out my unconventional syntax suggestion, you are now actively working on making cond-let* as bad as possible. And now you are recycling some old misconceptions about Transient, which can at best be described as half-truths.
> For people who can look at a list of key bindings once and have them memorized, maybe. Turns out most people are not like that, and appreciate an interface that accounts for that.
To clarify, the "custom buffer" can list the bindings. Think of Ediff and the control buffer at the bottom of the frame.
I am not saying that transient offers nothing over regular prefix keys, there is a common design pattern that has some definitive and useful value. My objection is that the implementation is more complex than it should be and this complexity affects UX issues.
> Not true. (Try it.) This was true for very early versions; it hasn't been true for years.
Then I was mistaken about the implementation, but on master C-s breaks transient buffers for me on master and I cannot use C-h k as usual to find out what a key-press execute. These are the annoyances I constantly run into that break what I tried to describe in my previous comment.
> Except that in the case of transient you actually can enable such buffer switching, it's just strongly discouraged because you are going to shoot yourself in the foot if you do that
I did not know about this, so thank you for the link. I will probably have to take a closer look, but from a quick glance over the issue, I believe that the problem that you are describing indicates that the fear I mentioned above w.r.t. the complexity of transient might be true.
> I usually do not respond to posts like this (anymore), but sometimes the urge is just too strong.
I understand your irritation and don't want to deny its validity. We do not have to discuss this publicly in a subthread about DOS IDEs, but I am ready to chat any time. I just want you to know that if I am not saying anything to personally insult you. Comments I make on cond-let and Magit sound the way they do because I am also genuinely irritated and concerned about developments in the Emacs package space. To be honest, it often doesn't occur to me that you would read my remarks, and I say this without any malicious or ulterior motives, in my eyes you are still a much more influential big-shot in the Emacs space, while I see myself as just a junior janitor, who's opinions nobody cares about. But these self-image and articulation problems are mine, as are their consequences, so I will do better to try to remember that the internet is a public space where anyone can see anything.
Odd, I can `C-s` just fine in transient buffers. It works exactly like in other buffers.
The `C-h` override is pretty cool there too, e.g. if from magit-status I do `C-h -D` (because I'm wondering what "-D Simplify by decoration" means), then it drops me straight into Man git-log with point at
--simplify-by-decoration
Commits that are referred by some branch or tag are selected.
(Ooh, I learnt a new trick from writing a comment, who say social media is a waste of time)
- Search for something using C-s
- Exit isearch by moving the point (e.g. C-n)
- Is the transient buffer still usable for you? In my case it becomes just a text buffer and all the shortcuts just got mapped to self-insert-command.
Dayum, given Transient's prickliness (I always feel like I'm walking on
eggshells when I'm in it) I've never dared to C-s. But I tried this,
and yeah, the transient reverts to a plain text buffer, and you're left
in the lurch.
Yeah I agree. I think transient is one of the less appealing things about magit and isn't really very emacs-y. Also, you still have to memorise them anyway
You say a lot of dumb ____ (but to be fair, I said a lot more when I was
your age), but your disdain for transient is on the money. I'm a
satisfied magit user, but transient is a blatant UX error and a
confounded implementation. Some guy spends his 20% time hawking an
entire suite around transient. No one cares.
What part of the incident did you miss: the problem here was that they didn't backup in the first place.
You don't need the Cloud for backups, and there's no reason to believe that they would have backuped their data while using the cloud more than what they did with their self-hosting…
Good point. I wonder if it might be a bimodal distribution - peaks for the super poor and the super wealthy. Of course, there are more poor than wealthy, so maybe you'd need to look at the rate per capita for different income brackets.
Maybe but honestly your logic doesn’t really make any sense to me anyway. If my time is worth $10k/hr, why am I driving myself? That alone is a huge waste of money.
My only knowledge of significant parking ticket acquisition from upper classes comes from lawyers outside courthouses. I tried looking for reporting on this but it may have just been a hyper local thing to where I grew up.
Could be family, I knew the daughter of a wealthy man who used to park wherever she liked and would pay the tickets without a second thought. I never asked her about it, but given what I remember of her (very personable and naive) she probably didn't see it as a problem, she just paid them and that was it.
