They did not in fact diagnose anything, "mental illness" is not a specific condition in the DSM. You'd have a valid point if they confidently stated he had bipolar disorder or something.

That's how it is on my Z Fold 8, I can really only see it with the screen off.

Yep, and at that point it doesn't matter. I mean, I know Apple likes to paint the back of the fence, but the technology isn't quite there for no crease just yet.

I highly doubt they're going to put out a product under their name that has such an obvious defect after six months. Something tells me they cracked this fully, and that's why this phone has been in development for over a year, so they can get actual long-term repeated use of it to see just how much this "crease" will or will not show.

It's Apple, not a budget Samsung. They 100% would not put out a product that starts having obvious lines down the center of it after using it for a couple months. You'll see when the 6-month reviews come in.

Somewhere between the 5 and 7 the crease was drastically reduced (except on mine, because the screen protector is delaminating)

yeah, don't put a screen protector on the inner screen

They come with one stock, and Samsung says you shouldn't remove it (which doesn't mean you can't, but I'm not brave enough to try). It's like $20 to get it replaced if you live near a Samsung shop

I removed it on Fold 5-7 and it felt a lot better. It won't kill the product like it did back in Fold 1 days. The screen is a lot more sensitive to micro scratches than your run if the mill gorilla glass though.

With my wife's folding Razor, there's a factory applied screen protector.

Z Folds come with a factory applied screen protector too, which i assume i was gp was talking about.

Is the factory applied screen protector user replaceable? Or is it a screen protector in the same way that the glass is 'screen protector'? It's just a part of the assembly?

Z Fold 8 already has this form factor, just without the giant corners so the front/inside screen are symmetrical on both axes and share the same radius.

Exactly, most Chinese/Eastern brands already standardised on the passport form factor, which is also why Apple chose it I guess. It has aspect ratio benefits.

Yeah I posted in another comment, but I'm quite confused by the corners. It's described like they solved some giant UX pain point on other foldables, but as far as I can tell it's a solution to a problem they created to make the corners have like a 50% radius? The screen is still so small I don't understand why that's desirable but maybe I'm missing the purpose.

It's to be distinctive in public from the square foldables. That's it. That's the reason.

I don't understand the value of the asymmetric corners, it seems to be working around their decision to have absolutely massive corner radius? Why would you want that?

I have a Z Fold 8 in the same passport form factor and it has slightly rounded corners on both the front and interior screen that are symmetrical along both axes. The usable space on the front screen is greater without those edges as it's just a ... normal phone screen?

Am I missing something?

Yep, it's same "passport" form factor as the (non-ultra) Z Fold 8, I just bought one last week and love the size.

When working on a problem models will walk you down a garden path requiring only yes/no answers or very brief clarifications for a long time. It's always proposing its own workarounds/suggestions/etc. Especially if trying to debug something where it has more understanding than the user so really all it needs from you is "uh sure try that too I guess" from time to time.

And sometimes the debugging has already veered completely off course at the beginning so it's futile, but each time the fleeting hope that just a few thousand more tokens will magically fix it tempts you to keep going a little longer.

No that makes them more interesting for the same reasons OP gave. You try to build a mental model of this mystery person from a mysterious time, where ever little detail could be a clue about them, their society/culture, or just trivial.

With AI writing the answer is that everything is randomly averaged and thus trivial.

> You try to build a mental model of this mystery person from a mysterious time

I’ve read many ancient texts with great delight, and not once have I tried to “build a mental model” of their authors. It’s a dimension of literary analysis that has never interested me, even for authors (such as Kafka) whose personal lives are generally considered inseparable from their works.

The work stands on its own for me… or doesn’t, in which case learning about the circumstances of whoever wrote it won’t save it in my eyes.

Pure mathematics (defined by anything without a known application) exists not to "solve problems" in the real world, but by whatever mathematicians find interesting or lacking in current knowledge. Based on the agreed set of rules formed over time that ensure rigor.

It just so happens that even bizarrely esoteric math can later turn out to have some extremely useful and economically valuable applications. And even more useful to have mathematicians available who already understand that specific math.

In that case isn't it actually more valuable to have an AI do this? It works faster and solves more math.

The random engineer looking at a funny problem 10 years later now has the literal author of the math to talk to about it and implement it.

I have never even spoken to a world class mathematician and now I can have them design with me?

How is this not better in almost everyway?

Guess it depends...

If said human is kicked to the street with thousands of other homeless people that can't get jobs because AI then robots replaced them, then those fast math problems sound like a pretty bad trade off.

Now, if there's some future where AI leads to abundance and we can all live off UBI, well, probably a worthwhile trade.

The biggest issue I see is the more controversial people leading the AI race at the moment are not the kind of people I'd hand kids safety scissors much less the future of the human race.

The incentives are massively skewed towards the AI labs investing their massive amounts of compute into being the first to solve an outstanding problem.

It's a marketing game for them, any societal benefits are secondary. Winning a prize is going to get headlines and feed into the "AGI soon, machine replaces another career" narrative they crave unlike coming up with some (possibly) interesting problems.