How do you use voice-to-text? You mean, in the browser?
I am only familiar with Claude Code, which I have installed on remote server, and there obviously, voice-to-text does not work. I have to type, which is tiring.
There are many tools for this, and I use the one that I tried first, so there are probably better-suited alternatives out there.
I run MacWhisper, and I paired it with BetterTouchTool so it triggers on any input when I double tap the fn/globe icon.
Obviously all of my transcriptions through it are entirely local. I usually use the Large V3 Turbo model, though in the beginning I used Parakeet v3, which was slightly faster but produced more mistakes (and kept a lot of filler words -- 'ahhm', 'hummm').
However, if I'm interacting with the Claude or ChatGPT/Codex apps, I often use their voice recognition instead, because it tends to be more accurate, especially with punctuation, albeit significantly slower. OpenAI's is noticeably better than Anthropic but I feel like that gap has closed a bit recently (might be all in my head, though).
Like I said I don't really care about mistakes in the transcription. If you try to read it, it feels like a fever dream, but the LLMs get it.
If I say "taken" it may have "take and"
If I say "all the while calling the method" it might have "although a while. while. call in the met of". This is a rather extreme example but I've seen them happen. The repetition of words happens because I'm talking with "humns and ahs" and do repeat words or just the ends of words. It's very rare for the models, especially Opus, to have any issue with this transcription. When they do, they tend to signal to me they didn't get it, or I catch them in the act. But, like I said, it really is very very rare.
As an example, I've got quite a significant feature to work on, which would have probably taken me weeks to design and implement, and I've used this exact method today to ink out the plan:
- I have spent the last couple of days researching the feature in my off-time and just "thinking about it in the background" (think: I fall asleep thinking of it -- a habit I've always had)
- I spent ~25 minutes brainstorming out loud. The transcript ended with ~17.000 characters and ~3.000 words.
- I sent that transcript, in cursor, to Opus 4.6-High with instructions on how to iterate on it and how I want to work while planning
- I then spent about 1.5 hours with it iterating and building the actual plan (and supporting technical decision document, which points at the FULL transcript of the whole interaction). Many of my original ideas made it to the final plan, others got scrapped or simplified, and others still got added. It contains a mixture of my ideas, Opus' ideas and our push-back on "each other".
- Now I have a multi-step plan, with at least 8 distinct stages to implement this massive feature which I know for a fact would have taken me weeks to implement, and I expect to implement it in at most 3 days, but very likely it will be a day and a half.
Final context (with regards to your Claude Code question): My main development environment is Cursor, though for personal projects I also use Codex and Claude code. For the initial "researching of the feature in my off-time" I often have interactions with ChatGPT and Claude where they have no access to the codebase, and I have them go find out what the state of the art on specific topics is. All of these interactions also involve me using my voice to talk to them (though nowadays I don't typically use their voice mode, I just let them reply in text). Then I brood over that.
An S-1 full of fantasies, insiders who will pocket millions, index companies that have changed the rules: it's all a recipe for regular people to have their pockets picked.
I noticed you only respond to comments that are positive (or neutral). The majority (and the most insightful) comments here are negative, but you seem to ignore them.
can you please give me a real-life example of an application, on a typical linux laptop or typical linux server, which userspace application would use this CRYPTO_USER_API ? None that I looked at seem to use it: openssl, pgp, sha256sum
can you please give me a real-life example of an application, on a typical linux laptop or typical linux server, which userspace application would use this CRYPTO_USER_API ? None that I looked at seem to use it: openssl, pgp, sha256sum
As Eric has correctly stated above, we believe iwd (Intel Wireless Daemon), or rather the ell library it relies on (Embedded Linux Library) is the only relatively widespread user space application relying on it.
Isn't the better argument to ask whether there'd be benefit if all those things did?
A lack of adoption isn't apriori a good argument against an interface, and serious bugs can happen anywhere.
My personal opinion for a while has been that crypto operations should be in the kernel so we can end the madness that is every application shipping it's own crypto and trust system which has only gotten worse since containers were invented.
> My personal opinion for a while has been that crypto operations should be in the kernel so we can end the madness that is every application shipping it's own crypto and trust system which has only gotten worse since containers were invented.
There’s a valid argument here but I think that’d devolve into the DNSSec trap without both a very well-designed API and a stable way to ship updates for older kernels. If people can’t get good user experience or have to force kernel upgrades to improve security, most applications will avoid it. Things like Chrome shipping their own crypto mean that they can very quickly ship things like PQC without waiting years or having to deal with issues like kernel n+1 having unrelated driver or performance issues which force things into a security vs. functionality fight.
Which does sort of loop around to the issue of Linux not having a stable ABI as a feature I suppose which would be one way to implement it with long term compatibility on kernel modules.
But the Chrome example also highlights the problem: Chrome might ship it, but vanishingly little software is ever going to upgrade and we've got an explosion of statically linked languages now.
If Linux does that, I really hope it can be done in a standardized way that doesn't make porting to *BSD more difficult than it already might be. Standards are a good thing.
> A lack of adoption isn't apriori a good argument against an interface
I mean it kind of is (perhaps not a priori, but why is that relavent?). If something is not being used, its not meeting needs, so its just increasing attack surfaces without benefit.
I completely agree with you. The only thing I would add is, that prediction markets are not necessarily oracles for predicting the future. They can just as well be used for hedging: imagine, hypothetically I really do not want Trump to win. I can bet on Trump, not because I want or expect him to win, but to hedge my position (perhaps my business would suffer if Trump wins)
is there any danger this data is biased?
Everything good gets corrupted eventually (amazon reviews, consumer reports, ..). is it possible they get some kickbacks for positive reviews ?
reply