Isn't this basically the WebMD effect migrating to other domains?
feels like the same lament doctors have had for ages after anyone could google their symptoms then self-diagnose.
While AI is driving it the foundational cause feels like people having easy access to data/opinion that they trust but don't fully comprehend (or have bias towards). People do this in meat-space too, will confidently regurgitate garbage if they were told it from a person they trust as an expert.
meh, a good number of these had just hit the market in 2021 and clearly had unsustainable prices to drive market penetration.
You can also see the "follow the leader" effect with prices converging around $20. If I had to guess I'd say the next 5+ years we'll see tighter price competition, probably companies following Netflix's pricing hikes and that prices will creep up to 24.99
Looks like every other website to me, even before Claude was a thing. IMHO new sites have looked like this for a long time.
I think it's less of a distinct aesthetic rather than having "Tells" in the template that you might be sensitive to for having worked with it.
I've seen word documents that the first time I saw them I thought nothing of it. Wasn't until I had ChatGPT work on something later and noticed it's exact use of particular fonts and colors that I realized the other was AI generated.
There was nothing materially wrong with the documents, but after seeing the connection you can't unsee it. It's not really a new or AI specific phenomenon either, any template can trigger it. like how every RPG maker game looks the same, or every substack blogs all are samey, even on custom domains.
dug up the story to read myself, nothing like labeling something "taboo" to make it more compelling.
The story itself is, meh. It's a pretty straightforward Day-in-the-life-of jaunt involving a rather dysfunctional teacher. Doesn't really start anywhere go anywhere or end anywhere. The narrator is pretty candid about that dysfunction and does reference sex and drugs but honestly it's pretty tame I think with a couple small edits it would be solidly PG-13.
Overall I wouldn't ever recommend this story to anyone I know. But I can absolutely see why it was used in the class. It's rife with conversation starters, and often feels purpose built for the type of pick-it-apart analysis that you would find in school. It has just enough shock value to wake up sleepy students, features both bad teachers and institutions as well as bad students which humanizes the meta-context in the real classroom.
I wouldn't recommend it in middle school, High school would be a big maybe for later years. As college curriculum, being taught to literal legal adults, that it was controversial at all seems bonkers, honestly it's categorization as "difficult material" by the author I find rather sad. In the end I'm not even sure what's "political" about it.
Seems the most telling real reason was from the president “I don’t ever want to see this story again, I wouldn’t want my daughter reading this,”. He's apparently too busy raising a snowflake to handle a story that simply states that "things exist" that he may find unsavory.
I support her dismissal, teaching positions require a pretty decent level of skill, and her ability to "read the room" has been called into question by her delivery of what I presume to be dodgy, offensive material. Her lack of judgement and her filthy mind has been made clear, at least to me.
"She was one of two girlfriends I had. We talked and talked. I told her that you couldn’t get fat from being ejaculated into."
Yeah president has a point, downvotes are fine, but she moved to florida and failed to test the wind direction down there lol
I'm surprised this hasn't run afoul of all-party wiretap laws. Even if you could waive your own rights via ToS other people in the house may not have agreed.
Theoretically I could see LG or even the TV's owner being culpable.
I'd love to see that case hit the media. Average citizen jailed over wiretap violations because they let their TV record a guest.
On top of that, the first few minutes of the video suggests it captures your neighbors' device and IP information.
I'm sure the ToS has some BS about you being required to inform any guests, but what if your TV is just recording your neighbors because they are close enough?
Just wait, I'm sure the "solution" will be that TVs start displaying reminders that you're being recorded...
Is our inability to innovate in technology really so bad that we have to just chase more and more spying? Consumers don't want these things. Why can't we innovate on things that consumers actually want? Remember, there was a time where we could build good technology, tech that people wanted, and make buckets of money doing it. That should be our goal, not some cyberpunk dystopia. Honestly it feels like anytime we try to innovate now some manager says "don't make things complicated" or some other dumb excuse, but maybe worse is that peers (other engineers) say "but what's the value" (they always stress that they mean monetary, not utility)? Feels like monkeys attacking each other for trying to get the banana...
Re. The last paragraph, that's what confuses me the most about all of this. LG has virtually held a monopoly of the entire OLED TV market for the past ~15 years, selling (arguably) one of the TVs on the market and being the only thing I've recommended people buy in about as long. They could have done literally nothing but update the hardware every other year with a newer SoC, HDMI version, etc. and done just fine. Now, I don't think I could see myself buying or even recommending any LG products going forward.
There *has* to be some complex math involved. It's insane that there's more profit in duping your users to spy on them and sell their data/information, than there is just making and selling a great product.
My partner, who has a doctorate in economics, and I end up talking about this a lot because I agree that doing nothing, as a monopoly, is the winning move for consumers. Related I ask why we have an economy set up where you're rewarded for climbing to the top but are punished for being at the top [0].
Their explanations are typically around markets being myopic and that low competition fucks things up even more. But we do make small decisions and they add up. I think many of the problems in the world today come from the accumulation of many small decisions, which is why they're hard to address. Obviously some people have more power than others, and more frequently have high power, but we should still look for our opportunities and not abdicate when and where we do have power. It is important for us to push back when we can. The top always wants to convince us that we have no power and we try to convince ourselves that's true because we believe that if we have power that makes us culpable, but I don't think that's true.
[0] my goto example is AWS. It's easy to find articles about how Azure or GCloud are "doing better" but AWS still has more total customers. But AWS is being "punished" for being at the top because it is just harder to grow percentage wise when you have a larger base amount (note, it isn't a zero sum game)
> It's insane that there's more profit in duping your users to spy on them and sell their data/information, than there is just making and selling a great product.
Seems pretty logical, no?
How do we sell more TVs? Be a cheaper and or better choice. If we're already doing well technically, sell customer data to discount the TV and appear more attractive.
If this is ethical / how much disclosure you'd need to give to customers so they can make this informed choice is a whole other discussion...
Not really, it's incredibly myopic. Would you really risk your brand, that took decades to build, by acting hostile to your customers? It only "makes sense" to do when you no longer care about your brand or you are only interested in the short term
>It's insane that there's more profit in duping your users to spy on them and sell their data/information, than there is just making and selling a great product.
And it feels like an inflationary behavior: people need marketing because the product doesn't sell itself because it is neglected in favor of data collection and marketing that is needed because GOTO 1.
Maybe the incentive are at the individual level, not the company level.
How do you justify your salary/bonus as the TV product team manager by making the same product year in year out? If you have KPI's for new features or cost savings you are going run out of options eventually.
You seem to be making the assumption that this is all a zero sum game.
I have to point out the irony that this is a technology based site, focused on software. You know, a sector that isn't nearly as tied to physical resources as other sectors. It's the whole reason our industry exploded, because you can make software and ship it an infinite number of times, allowing you to scale like no other sector can.
But my point is that the economy is a positive sum game. There's always more money to be made through more innovation.
When you treat things as zero sum you make all these bad decisions and focus on the wrong type of growth. It makes you focus on capturing the existing market rather than push to create markets that previously never existed. (Of course there's a bad way to do the latter too. You can make markets against people's will, as we also see today...)
But once you've innovated that first bit, you're in a mature industry, do you do the hard thing and innovate again or do you just stay there slowly becoming irrelevant, or do you optimise what you have and figure out more income sources from the same innovation for even more money?
Take a look at any mature software product, do they try to innovate more, or do they figure out how to put more advertisements into it?
But in a {mono,oligo}polistic setting companies typically get lazy.
> Take a look at any mature software product
For most companies that have cornered the market, the latter. But it seems you're implying that if they haven't cornered the market then they aren't mature.
The TV's license agreement attempts to shift the burden onto the TV's owner. Taken at face value, it's the owner who is guilty of recording people without their consent.
Of what? This can only be evaluated in the context of wherever you live. In most of America recording sounds "in public" is a broadly protected activity because that's what "in public" means. You can only get in trouble for this if you violate another person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Really good question. For instance, TX is a one-party consent state. If the TV is recording what's happening in the living room with nobody's knowledge, that seems like a very clear violation of "one party in the conversation needs to know it's being recorded." IANAL
Energy density alone is a misleading metric, because what matters is how much energy actually gets delivered to the drive mechanism. It's actually not that hard to beat gasoline, because despite its excellent energy density, gasoline engines are only 30% efficient. First and foremost a gasoline engine is a machine for producing heat and noise, and only incidentally for producing forward motion.
I think lithium air batteries will be the real inflection point for aeronautics. Li-air has potential density 12 kWh/kg. CATL is focused on this tech. May be some years before they are able to achieve the full potential density. Still, as the other commenters said, the efficiency of electricity make make up that difference.
Also for traditional fuel you don’t have to carry half of the fuel - oxidizer comes from air. And then when you spend fuel, you have less weight to carry (which becomes noticeable on the plane).
10 years later I can say they spent a lot of time putting lipstick on that pig, maybe even a dress and a tiara. Probably one of the nicest pigs out there, but it's still a pig and always will be.
So imma play devil's advocate a bit, cuz I think it's fun, also I dislike bandwagoning.
Meta may not be a great company but I don't think their loss here is all that great either:
>In New Mexico, Meta is being required to improve "age assurance models and tools" using AI, and to attempt "to develop, within two years, a dedicated under-13-years-of-age prediction model."
None of that sounds really desirable to me. I read that as "death of the anonymous internet", Meta's loss (to the cheers of everyone) is ushering in ubiquitous age verification.
I also see stuff like this:
> [google and youtube were] negligent and failed to warn users of the dangers associated with using their platforms.
and
> Industry experts are calling it social media's "Big Tobacco" moment, with Meta as the centerpiece
While psychological addiction is a thing lets not conflate that with literal physical addiction to a chemical. "warn users of the dangers",really? what do they want; a big banner that says "Warning! youtube might be too entertaining"?
While I don't doubt Meta's done some shady stuff, or at least mildly negligent stuff because it benefits them I think in some respects they have an impossible task. I also thing they've become a scapegoat such that lazy parents and bored adults can eschew any personal responsibility for their actions. "its not my fault I let my kid on Facebook unfettered, or spent all Tuesday doomscrolling, it's these damn companies giving me everything I want!", hell I do it here on HN which barely even has "an algorithm" it's such an easy trap to fall into companies barely need to even try.
> None of that sounds really desirable to me. I read that as "death of the anonymous internet", Meta's loss (to the cheers of everyone) is ushering in ubiquitous age verification.
This is an interesting point, that Meta's unpopularity in this matter could be used as cover to push other unpopular agendas.
reply