tracerbulletx

A person's work is a valid part of their life, and for fans of a celebrity probably the only part they really have the ability to speak about other than they heard he was a nice guy. The way a work of fiction impacts your life is a valid reason to remember an actor fondly I think. I also think if a hotdog vendor died it would be ok to talk about how fucking good the hotdogs he made were and how much it meant to you to stop to get one after work or whatever.

Was kind of hoping this would be more like SWAT Kats

Yes that's good. I recently told someone going on Facebook was like standing in the check out aisle at Walmart and forced to look at all the old celeb gossip mags and conspiracy tabloids from the pre-internet era. A lot of what seems like everyone getting dumber is partially just people who normally would have avoided that stuff getting it put in their face too.

Try making a smaller classifier model for some random problem you have that's immediately useful and doesn't exist yet.

Definitely. There are still some areas of the internet with high enough signal to noise ratio, but many areas of the internet I just don't go now (pretty much anywhere remotely mainstream that is valuable to monetize attention and not heavily curated against it) because I just feel my self being manipulated the entire time and its mostly anger and frustration they use to activate a response from you.

If you step back and look at humanity as a system, the flow of capital is just definitionally the fate of humanity. In the same way the neural electrical signals and flow of hormones and nutrients in your body are the fate of all the cells in your body.

Very little. It's that America's tax incentives are not competitive. They fly crews to make game shows from LA to london because its cheaper to shoot a show there. There's strong momentum to change that at the moment, there's a bill that might actually get passed that will make the tax environment competitive again in the states that stack theirs on it.

Hard to describe the impact of computing as quite small compared to anything, even the internet when you go see those old room sized early IBM computers that were the first commercially viable ones for businesses. They used to have warehouses of payroll documents and armies of people to shuffle around paperwork and crunch numbers and physical people connecting phone lines. Just absolutely fantastically massive amounts of busy work.

Literally the entire premise of the article is that it's going slow everywhere but in software. To think otherwise is to be really myopic about how the rest of the world outside of tech operates. And in any case 20 years isn't that slow. The only things that happen faster that that will be things like adobe goes out of business. And let's say AI helps us develop medicine and robotics and better factories and all the other things that would have a big impact a lot faster.. just human trials could take a decade before you really see that much change. Will it have a wider impact faster than computing its self, or the internet? Maybe? Maybe not.

Good reference. It is going to slowly change things in 20 years we'll look back and a lot of things will be wildly different because of AI systems. But its rate limited by institutions and momentum and human psychology and the way things change will be somewhat unpredictable with unintended negative and positive consequences.

Building software is only one part of building a business. There's a bottleneck in all of the other parts.

Hard to blame people for chasing the incentives. I had a small software business. The whole job became "getting the money" above anything else. We built things, but 80% of the work, what paid the bills was getting people to pay us. I wish it wasn't that way, but the reason sales is off in a silo and paid to close above all else is because it's what pays the bills. Its really rare you make something so great and obvious it just makes money without the dirty reality of sales or fund raising.

Why would that happen if the website owners are explicitly trying to prevent access? This isn't a technical issue, the agents are perfectly capable of working with the existing websites regardless of ads and javascript. The semantic web and machine readable representations was a 90s thing, agents don't need that really.

When you see reporting like this it means there was some study that had some evidence of some effect that somewhat matches the description in the headline, but nothing more than that. How good of a study it was, how large the effect, how in alignment or not it is with a body of evidence, how reproduceable it is, how exaggerated the press release is. Are all left out and are all critical to how much anyone should care about the statement. What it definitely does not mean is "all scientists are asserting this truth in the headline"

“I think that, every time you see the word EBITDA, you should substitute the words "bullshit earnings.” ― Charles T. Munger

And what they're reporting is adjusted even further than EBITDA