"Connect accounts for one easy login Glassdoor is teaming up with Indeed to streamline your job search. We're introducing one login to connect Glassdoor and Indeed accounts.

When you connect accounts, your recent profile data will be synced, giving you access to better job matches and hiring employers across both sites.

Our commitment to anonymity Your anonymous activity on Glassdoor, like company reviews or demographic information, won't be shared with Indeed and will remain anonymous.

What's next For right now, you’ll need to connect accounts to apply to jobs on Glassdoor and get improved job matching. Starting on April 20th, 2026, you may be required to log in with a connected account to get full access to Glassdoor."

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47582218

Points: 16

# Comments: 2

It is very common for technology companies (particularly when providing data through an API,) to include a term that more-or-less says their customers can't build a product that will compete with them. These terms can become quite contentious and may be the subject of detailed negotiations on a customer by customer basis. An example is in the finance industry where a number of companies provide products to end users but also licsense data to other companies that also make products for end users.

Looking at the four big labs, I prefer the terms from OpenAI and Google (Gemini). Unless I am missing something, they are both relatively narrow in how they limit your use. As long as you aren't trying to use their model to build a competitive model, the term doesn't look that threatening.

OpenAI: Consumer: you may not "Use Output to develop models that compete with OpenAI." Business: will not "except for a Permitted Exception, use Output to develop artificial intelligence models that compete with OpenAI’s products and services;..."

Gemini: "You may not use the Services to develop models that compete with the Services (e.g., Gemini API or Google AI Studio)."

xAI: xAI is more problematic since it is more broad in what it covers. That said, it's probably not of a major immediate concern to most customers since the xAI product/service offering is quite narrow today. That may change meaningfully when Macrohard launches if the rumours are true. Consumer: Prohibited uses... "Using the Service or any Output to develop models or services that compete with xAI,..." Enterprise: shall not... "use any Service to help develop, or help provide to any third party, any product or service similar to or competitive with any Service;..."

Anthropic: From my perspective, the Anthropic terms are the most challenging: Consumer: may not use... "To develop any products or services that compete with our Services,..." Enterprise: "Customer may not and must not attempt to (a) access the Services to build a competing product or service,..."

The challenge is that the Anthropic term is not limited to "models" like OpenAI and Gemini and your chances of overlapping with Anthropic may be higher depending on how exactly the definition of "competing product service" is interepreted.

If a software company uses Claude Code to build a legaltech startup, are they now in violation of this term after Anthropic announced the legal plugin for Claude Cowork? What about all of wealthtech companies using Claude (Claude Code, Claude Co-work, the models API) after the announcemen today that Claude is launching wealth management plugins? Perhaps the concern is a bit of a stretch but it feels messier than it should be.

At some point, I beleive the frontier labs need to decide if it is more important to win in the infrastructure layer or the application layer. They can play in both layers but the terms need to reflect their primary objective. That, or they need to be open to negotiationg and signing custom terms with smaller companies that are taking a long term view.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47144431

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

APK file available on GitHub in the releases. Currently only for Android. Is anyone interested in porting to iPhone?

My preferred way to interact with LLMs is talking and listening while I'm walking, biking, driving, etc. The problem with the apps from the frontier labs is that their voice mode prioritizes real-time interactions and so they use watered down models.

Even today with a paid subscription, ChatGPT Voice will tell you there are two r's in strawberry. The answers are also relatively brief and so there is a need to chain together a series of simpler requests when you want to do a deeper dive.

SlothSpeak goes to the opposite end of the spectrum. It might leave you hanging for a few minutes but when it gets back to you, it will be an answer from a state of the art model. You can even do deep research queries to get very long and comprehensive responses.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47136158

Points: 3

# Comments: 2

And they say: "This includes detection of chain-of-thought elicitation used to construct reasoning training data." ... "We are developing Product, API and model-level safeguards designed to reduce the efficacy of model outputs for illicit distillation, without degrading the experience for legitimate customers."

It's going to be very hard to generate outputs that people need but that also can't be used for distillation. For example, it's a good practice for many reasons including audibility to ask for the chain of thought. In fact, I'd argue it's essentially impossible to modify the outputs in a way that makes them less useful for distillation without degrading quality for legitimate users.

So then their only viable option is to try to identify the traffic. However, that is very hard because: "In one case, a single proxy network managed more than 20,000 fraudulent accounts simultaneously, mixing distillation traffic with unrelated customer requests to make detection harder."

"Through Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, and a new regulation, there is now a requirement for prospective AI and data-centre projects to take part in a competitive selection process to access clean electricity. This requirement does not apply to traditional industries, such as mining, liquefied natural gas (LNG), forestry, manufacturing or hydrogen for domestic use." "The allocation targets for these projects are for as much as 400 megawatts for the first two years."

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47127376

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Folks in Canada have noticed that when they search for provincial parks in Google Maps or Google Search (e.g. "Joffre Lakes Provincial Park") that in the description /smart summary, these provincial parks are now being labelled as state parks by Google. Everyone feels that they used to be described as provincial parks but they can't be sure and no one has any historical screenshots. It's possible no one ever paid attention before and it always attached the "state parks" metadata to these results. Of course, these types of pages are not archived by the WayBackMachine. It got me thinking that it is actually quite interesting to see how search results for specific terms change over time. Is there any service that archives search results pages over time?

Note: Of course, you are free to comment as you wish but my preference is to avoid a political debate about Canadian sovereignty. Despite the example, I am really just interested in the technical question at hand.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43155509

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

The basic idea is that I read out a token when the video is recorded and then anyone can verify it by checking online. It's obviously redundant if I am sharing a video through my own channel but I think it could be interesting for celebrities and politicians that are often recorded by other people.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43045193

Points: 3

# Comments: 1