motoxpro

Dont you want to spend more than 1 hour getting to know the company you might spend the next 5-10 years of your life with?

Give it 8-9 months and all that stuff will be fixed. Given this is 100x better than what we had 8-9 months ago.

Or just put in more than 10 words of effort, e.g. a better prompt and bounding boxed prompt edits, and all that stuff would be fixed now.

They said/did that when the ran sales every two weeks.

Large players always do that, see Walmart, Amazon, etc.

"Your margin is my opportunity" etc etc

Ah remember the good old days when models couldn't do images with text because it couldn't spell or letter would be borked?

Also, ironically, the pitch was supposed to be a win win: If we cut out the middleman and stop spending so much on sponsoring athletes and sports, we can pass those savings on to customers, bringing us more sales at lower cost to consumers and higher margin for us because our cost structure is lower.

Turns out people don't always want lower-priced products.

They are a public company and the strategy was very VERY public. You can listen to the earnings calls. It's not like they wanted to hide it. It actually went EXTREMLY well for a year or so. I agree that it was a bad decision, but the logic wasn't stupid. Just a misunderstanding of what made the company valuable.

I always wonder why the monday morning quarterbacks who think these are such obvious choices in the moment aren't millionaires though. If it was that easy to see it was not good at the time, just buy some puts or short the stock or buy the stock of a competitor. Free money for 15 minutes of reading an article!

Huh? I would echo the sentiment of you recalibrating what a normie is. This is a crazy take. I would guess that fair amount of people have no idea that Facebook rebranded to Meta, let alone what goes on in and around the company.

Meta products are entertainment, not water and power, comparing them to that is so overblown.

Plenty of people don't use IG or Facebook at all, and plenty of people just go on every now and then and enjoy the experience and leave.

So cool to see someone who loves challenges. Congrats!

From that perspective, every technical blog post from a company is guilty of the same thing.

That was my point. There is nothing that companies do that is NOT to make money. I feel like that would be like saying the Attention is All You Need paper is disengenious because it doesn't explain how it will make Google billions more in search profit.

If that's true, people will leave for bigger libraries and netflix will have to rotate into quantity. That hasn't been the case so far (net flix is killing everyone in terms of subscribers/growth YoY), but doesnt mean it can't be, especially with the paramount merger potentially going through.

I think it's been a little bit proven that it's more about specific shows (friends, seinfeld, how to lose a guy in 10 days, etc) that just mass amount of quantity, but we'll see

I wonder if people were this upset when recsys moved from linear regression to XGBoost.

Why would they not try make money as a business?

Also, if "The Odyssey" is coming out and and you know I love Nolan, and Netflix is getting paid to promote it, would you rather them NOT recommend that to me?

These types of things are natrually constrained. If you send me too many ads, or bad content, I leave. So you are incentived to do a good job.

You could make the argument that you just need to be incrementally better than the other streaming service, but then you are giving away potential advantage and profit.