By John Gruber
Copilot Money — The Apple Editor’s Choice money tracker. Now also on the web.
Purely fun, pay-whatever-you-think-fair app for the Mac from Simon Støvring (developer of numerous fine apps such as Runestone and Scriptable):
Festivitas automatically adds festive lights to your menu bar and dock upon launch and you can tweak their appearance to match your preferences.
There is something very core to the Mac’s origins about not just making a software toy like this, but putting effort into making everything about it really nice. Harks back to Steven Halls’s The Talking Moose and, of course, the undisputed king of the genre, Eric Shapiro’s The Grouch. Oh, and of course (thanks to Stephen Hackett for the reminder), Holiday Lights.
Update, Friday 6 December: Today’s 1.1 update brings several improvements, including making the lights look way cooler if your Dock is on the left or right (as god intended).
David Frum, writing at The Atlantic, regarding his jarring appearance as a guest on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:
Before getting to the article, I was asked about the nomination of Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense — specifically about an NBC News report that his heavy drinking worried colleagues at Fox News and at the veterans organizations he’d headed. [...] I answered by reminding viewers of some history:
In 1989, President George H. W. Bush nominated John Tower, senator from Texas, for secretary of defense. Tower was a very considerable person, a real defense intellectual, someone who deeply understood defense, unlike the current nominee. It emerged that Tower had a drinking problem, and when he was drinking too much he would make himself a nuisance or worse to women around him. And for that reason, his nomination collapsed in 1989. You don’t want to think that our moral standards have declined so much that you can say: Let’s take all the drinking, all the sex-pesting, subtract any knowledge of defense, subtract any leadership, and there is your next secretary of defense for the 21st century.
I told this story in pungent terms. It’s cable TV, after all. And I introduced the discussion with a joke: “If you’re too drunk for Fox News, you’re very, very drunk indeed.”
At the next ad break, a producer spoke into my ear. He objected to my comments about Fox and warned me not to repeat them. I said something noncommittal and got another round of warning. After the break, I was asked a follow-up question on a different topic, about President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son. I did not revert to the earlier discussion, not because I had been warned, but because I had said my piece. I was then told that I was excused from the studio chair. Shortly afterward, co-host Mika Brzezinski read an apology for my remarks.
Jesus. The abject obsequiousness is staggering. Yes, it’s a joke at Fox News’s expense. But Fox News — on-air — has indeed been backing Hegseth’s nomination, even though it’s quite obvious that everyone who works there knows he has an alcohol problem. From that NBC News report (note that despite their names, the MSNBC and NBC News newsrooms are no longer associated):
Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary, drank in ways that concerned his colleagues at Fox News, according to 10 current and former Fox employees who spoke with NBC News. Two of those people said that on more than a dozen occasions during Hegseth’s time as a co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend, which began in 2017, they smelled alcohol on him before he went on air. Those same two people, plus another, said that during his time there he appeared on television after they’d heard him talk about being hungover as he was getting ready or on set.
One of the sources said they smelled alcohol on him as recently as last month and heard him complain about being hungover this fall. None of the sources with whom NBC News has spoken could recall an instance when Hegseth missed a scheduled appearance because he’d been drinking. “Everyone would be talking about it behind the scenes before he went on the air,” one of the former Fox employees said.
Note too that Fox & Friends Weekend airs at 6:00 in the morning.
Oliver Darcy, in a well-sourced report at Status (paywalled, alas, but with a preview of the article if you sign up for the free version of his newsletter, which I agree is sort of a “Yeah, no thanks” offer):
Patrick Soon-Shiong is tightening his grip over the Los Angeles Times. The MAGA-curious owner, who drew controversy when he blocked the newspaper’s planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, has waded further into its operations since the November election, according to new information I have learned and public remarks the billionaire made Wednesday during a media appearance with right-wing personality Scott Jennings. [...] Several veteran staffers told me that morale has never been lower, with some people even wondering whether the newspaper will be disfigured beyond recognition under this new era of Soon-Shiong’s reign. [...]
One disturbing example came after the newspaper published an opinion piece in November about Elon Musk that Soon-Shiong did not care for, people familiar with the matter told me. The piece, written by Times opinion contributor Virginia Heffernan, carried the headline, “Elon Musk bought himself a starring role in Trump’s second term. What could go wrong?”
While the headline seemed innocuous, Soon-Shiong expressed dismay over it, according to the people familiar with the matter. The headline was allowed to remain unchanged. But, as a result, the people said, a new rule was put into place: Prior to publishing opinion stories, the headlines must be emailed over to Soon-Shiong, where he can then choose to weigh in. While it is normal for newspaper owners to influence the opinion wing of a newspaper, it is highly unusual for an owner to have article headlines sent to them ahead of publication for review.
That also seems like a lot of work for a busy billionaire. Wonder how he might handle that?
Speaking to Jennings as the latter hosted a radio show Wednesday, the billionaire revealed that, behind the scenes, he is working on developing a “bias meter” powered by artificial intelligence that will be placed on both opinion and news stories. Soon-Shiong said that the hope is to roll out the new feature, which will use the technology to seemingly warn readers that his own reporters are biased, as early as next month. [...]
Suffice to say, but when the journalists at the Times heard the “breaking news” that Soon-Shiong delivered to Jennings, they spiraled even further. “People are now deeply fucking concerned,” one staffer bluntly told me Wednesday night.
What could go wrong?
In response, the LAT Guild issued a statement, concluding:
The statements of Dr. Soon-Shiong in the press and on social media reflect his own opinions and do not shape reporting by our member-journalists.
Our members — and all Times staffers — abide by a strict set of ethics guidelines, which call for fairness, precision, transparency, vigilance against bias, and an earnest search to understand all sides of an issue. Those longstanding principles will continue guiding our work.
The Guild has secured strong ethics protections for our members, including the right to withhold one’s byline, and we will firmly guard against any effort to improperly or unfairly alter our reporting.
Stephanie Palazzolo, writing for The Information (paywalled, alas):
Researchers at OpenAI believe that some rival AI developers are training their reasoning models by using OpenAI’s o1 reasoning models to generate training data, according to a person who has spoken to the company’s researchers about it. In short, the rivals can ask the o1 models to solve various problems and then use the models’ chain of thought — the “thought process” the models use to solve those problems — as training data, the person said.
You might be wondering how rival developers can do that. OpenAI has explicitly said it hides its reasoning models’ raw chains of thought due in part to competitive concerns.
But in answering questions, o1 models include a summarized version of the chain of thought to help the customer understand how the models arrived at the answer. Rivals can simply ask another LLM to take that summarized chain of thought and predict what the raw chain of thought might have been, the person who spoke with the researchers said.
And I’m sure these OpenAI researchers are happy to provide this training data to competitors, without having granted permission, in the same way they trained (and continue to train) their own models on publicly available web pages, without having been granted permission. Right?