benjaminbachman

Is the title here implying users will be chatting with bots run by the companies? Why in the world would they do that?

Clearly the purpose here is to weed out fraud and abuse more easily by analyzing chats between users. I'd welcome it. I'm pretty sure some dating apps already do this, both with text and images, but ChatGPT is probably better at it.

50% or 0% are both interesting goals, but the headline implies that the website is some test of free will. If you get 0%, then it shows there is an algorithm that predicts your performance, and the Kolmogorov complexity is finite. That algorithm is the inverse of the one the website is using.

If we conflate "free-will" with "ability to generate truly random sequences" then the goal should be to generate a completely incompressible, unpredictable sequence, which 50% would probably be closer to.

Bumble offers a lifetime membership, which I think fixes the perverse incentives.

Don't use it.

But there's no network effects with razors.

The only real news here is that Reddit mods are power mad tyrants, which is nothing new at all. AI generated art has just given them newer, funnier ways to be in the wrong.

It's not a weird question. He wants to know one that is reputable (so do I), not just another random one that might have the same problem.

"If you aren't the customer, you're the product" apparently is a lie. You're the product no matter what. Unless I missed it in the article, I doubt paying $100 for the advanced tax prep excluded me from this.

"Leave your friends and family, abandon the area that you grew up in for 30 years" is not really practical advice. Maybe it works for you, but it does not for other people.

You are right about this though: it is supply and demand. And currently there is a lot of regulatory capture on the supply side. Meanwhile there are new investment vehicles on the demand side.

I don't know what the solution is, but when I watch my local news, not a week goes by that I don't see a headline about a developer trying to build some high density housing, but local residents show up to some board meeting and complain about it until they reduce the density. The reasons given make no sense. "It's not part of our community plan"... So change the plan??

Sounds like a more realistic restriction is "60 mph minimum"

I would sooner create a second ticket that represents the blocking task and link it as a blocker to the first ticket.

I like the New York Times but I was infuriated by the unsubscribe process. I also turned down a super cheap extension.

I am now subscribed via the Google Play store, which means the NYT loses a big chunk of the money, all so I can be guaranteed an easy cancellation button.