Although you will have to buy a used phone in order to pay less than 250$, it seems like GrapheneOS is the best solution for that problem. Not optimal, but the best among what we have.
I was thinking the same. But it worries me that these news about Motorola in particular doing shady shit. I was looking forward to the upcoming GrapheneOS/Motorola partnership :(
How about the FairPhone running /e/os (which is de-googled)? You can buy it preinstalled directly from Murena.
Although this is not at your target price point. But /e/os can be used on hundreds of android phones (as opposed to GrapheneOS). So you can probably install it on your current phone
Having no GMS implementation at all or using microG introduces compatibility issues for a lot of proprietary software. GrapheneOS is the only ROM which supports running GMS in an isolated manner, without giving it direct access to privileged system APIs such as geolocation (which is sent to Google just because they can).
The pixel 9a was on offer recently here in Spain for 319€ and that includes 21% tax. At major chain called media markt. That phone is one of the few supported by grapheneos.
>we'll even buy compute from China if we can sell Anthropic models there.
Considering that Anthropic mass-bans Chinese users accounts based on using VPN (used to circumvent the Chinese firewall) and then demands an ID or a residence permit of a country where Claude officially works to ensure that the user doesn't live in China, seems unlikely.
If the Chinese government tells Anthropic they can freely sell Claude in China, Dario is suddenly going to be kissing China's ass instead of saying how we can't let China win the AGI race for democracy and western values.
They told the US government no on using Claude for approving lethal military strikes.
China can get plenty of value from Claude without needing to use it for anything similar.
They very specifically avoided a trap where the next time the US blows up a school full of children they were very obviously going to blame Claude for it.
While I agree with the sentiment, $200 Million is really not a big contract for Anthropic when they're on $44 Billion annual revenue. It's less than half a percent.
It would have been much better to be able to disable telemetry without losing basic functionality such as navigation and safety updates. Having to choose between being spied on and having no connectivity at all is a false dichotomy.
Any connectivity at all is telemetry. The connection itself reveals where you are. Navigation reveals where you are down to the meter, along with everywhere you've been, where you're going, speed, etc. What else are you worried about if not that?
It reveals where you are to the cell towers, but not to the car company. My phone already reveals where I am based on its cellular connectivity, so I'm not too worried about that.
I’m not OP but I just want to point out that navigation doesn’t need to mean I am always sharing telemetry with multiple third parties
I have a garmin watch which is great for overland hiking, multiple day expeditions etc
I download the maps and the watch has GPS to plot where I am on that map. My watch doesn’t have an eSIM at all.
Rivian is an adventure brand so if they wanted to design a maps system like that, where I am not continually downloading tiles from open maps or google and sending my location to them and others, they probably could
I just don’t think they have space for those types of features most people don’t care about while they are trying to compete in a rough industry and deliver new vehicles
It's telling just how completely successful the social media revolution has been, when we don't remember that two short decades ago 3rd-party car navigation options that relied on maps loaded on the device and GPS input and that's all. No SIM cards (though they could have done so at the time), no telemetry.
The experience was even comparable to today's experience - I've been auto-routed around a road closure, like, twice in 5 years? And it _failed_ to route me around a road closure probably twice as well?
Why would you be sharing that? There's no reason why the navigation system needs to constantly tell a remote system where you are. Navigation systems don't even need an Internet connection for basic routing.
Navigation through gps means you're connected to a satelite at all times. has nothing to do with an internet connection. You're directly connected to the U.S. government (Space Force)
A GPS receiver is passive, it doesn't send any signal to the satellites. The satellite broadcast their position and what time it is from their point of view, and the receiver computes its position from that.
Also, there are now several countries that sent positioning constellations (obviously to not have to rely on the US for positioning), and most receivers support several: GPS (US), Galileo (Europe), Glonass (Russia), Beidu (China).
GPS and other similar technologies work by passively listening to the satellite signals without having to respond to them in any manner. Location is calculated based on time it took for the signal from difficult beacons to arrive.
I personally explicitly avoid parallel agents, since it creates too much cognitive debt, and sometimes an agent may need steering towards an architectally sane solution mid-work.
Agreed. With simple stuff it works. But then again with simple stuff it’s pretty fast to do it sequentially.
With complex stuff I often have open the “thinking” output so I can stop/interrupt with guidance. Without that it’s often garbage output that I then have to work to fix, which is difficult to do while you’re also doing the same with a parallel process.
Totally agree, the more parallel agents you spawn the more the probability of you vibe coding rather than guide coding. There comes a point when my mind says just commit and move on, which I fight to not do it.
You're absolutely right! No, really: I've never had this problem of unprompted changes when I'm just asking, but I always (I think even in real-life conversations with real people) start with feedback: "Works great. What happens if..."
I think people having different styles of prompting LLMs leads to different model preferences. It's like you can work better with some colleagues while with others it does not really "click".
GPT models are generally much better at C++, although they sometimes tend to produce correct but overengineered code, and the operator has to keep an eye on that.
