mwhitfield

It wouldn't be an HN comment thread without a 100% confident, no-room-for-doubt assertion of AI-generated writing.

This is definitely slimy, but it's pretty much bog-standard slimy marketing practice these days, no? Like these is framed as though it's a big expose, but isn't it common knowledge that tons of companies do this kind of thing?

No, it's

average poverty ≝ average(1 / annual income)

Inversely proportional to the harmonic mean of average yearly income.

I've had *very* much the opposite experience. Very nearly every AI skeptic take I read has exactly this opinion, if not always so well-articulated (until the last section, which lost me). But counterarguments always attack the complete strawman of "AI is utterly useless," which very few people, at least within the confines of the tech and business commentariat, are making.

Or the twitter account of any VC

Huh? On Android at least, re-routing in navigation requires an explicit confirmation from you.

The headline, as always, is disingenuous. They were asked why they couldn't lock third parties out of this level of unprotected system access, and said that the 2009 ruling prevented them from doing so. Which is simply factually correct.

You're maybe not wrong, but I'm pretty sure I was reading this same comment 10 years ago, when we were just calling it deep learning.

There are hundreds of millions or billions of us, though, depending on how broad a brush you use. Any given issue or value is going to have someone, in fact quite a lot of someones, on every conceivable side of it. Even if you limit your scope to the people who have a substantial voice in the culture.

It's only "hypocrisy" if it's the same people saying it. The media zeitgeist is not a person.

You gotta remember, what's being sold in this kind of pitch is not a business model. They're looking for unicorns. What's being sold is the maximum possible size of the market you can extract value from.

I'm no VC, but I feel like if I am and you're telling me that _all_ consumer transactions of any kind are going to flow through a portal _you_ own, it doesn't get much bigger than that. The odds of success don't have to be that high, and in principle you just factor the possibility that the founder's full of crap into those odds; you don't have the time to understand every possible market and every person pitching you in the depth necessary to make that determination, right?

Not to mention the "Earning" medium is independent of the "Playing" medium. The conflicting incentives don't come into play (as much), i.e. the game can still actually be fun.

> a panoply of boundaries in executive humanity

Anyone else's brain kind of error out trying to parse this phrase?

> We bring in store consumers... transparency.

I mean... come on. Surely someone must have noticed this? Is it some kind of cruel joke?

Can you elaborate which parts of the style you feel "will not be taken seriously"? It looks like a pretty standard resume to me.