Recent submissions

Comment · 7 months ago
For anyone interested in how this can be changed, here’s an example from the Nordics.

In the early 2000s, the Swedish tax agency, Skatteverket, started a journey from “tax police” to service. This was a radical change that affected every aspect and function of the bureaucracy. It went from far down the list to the second most trusted agency (after the Swedish Armed Forces) in 2023 [1].

As a citizen, the differences are notable. I came to Sweden after the change, and my previous experiences in other countries were very similar to the friction-filled endeavor implied by the author. The people I dealt with were similarly unhelpful, unconcerned, if not downright undermining my efforts to comply.

This is all a result of a system that breeds friction. Citizens and bureaucrats alike simply play their part. Moving to Sweden was an otherworldly experience. My first mistake, and resulting interaction with the agency, was met with compassion and understanding from a bureaucrat who then made an effort to help put things right. It’s hard to describe how radically different the situation felt. Anger, frustration, and helplessness were gone. Instead, I felt like sending flowers to Karin, the bureaucrat (I really should have). I’ve become a better citizen, more likely to comply going forward.

I wish more agencies around the world would take note, especially now, in a world trending toward fewer human interactions and increasing digitalization. Bureaucracies and technology alike should continue to be built to improve collective human experiences, not break us apart.

[1] https://chef.se/artiklar/skatteverkets-forandringsresa-nagra...

Apologies for the poor quality link, my morning Googling wasn't very effective.

Comment · 11 months ago
Another Mozilla-made-a-decision thread, another list of complaints.

I'm a happy Firefox user since it showed up as an alternative to internet explorer. I tried Chrome once or twice but always came back and stuck with Firefox. I don't trust Google for anything and don't want them to rule over the web. Firefox works, it has worked for me all these years and continues to do so. I still believe in them and their mission even if they have to take Google money to exist.

I think that complaints here are just making things worse for Mozilla, how about helping out instead of whining about every little thing. They're trying, that's a lot more than can be said about a whole lot of other actors out there.

Firefox team, if you read this, you rock! Thank you for giving me a great browser.

Comment · 1 year ago
Comment · 2 years ago
Yes, just rewording is enough in this case. It will fail if it tries to be clever with the code interpreter as mentioned.

I used:

"Extract the important dates and times from this pdf in Swedish"

[..]

"Great now generate the content of an ics formatted file, just the text, with the schedule above"

[..]

"Now use the code interpreter to create a file with the above content then save the file as an .ics extension"

Comment · 2 years ago
I had the exact same use case two weeks ago but I had received a pdf file from school and was sitting at a cafe with only my phone.

I use ChatGPT, and while the article is correct to say that it will claim that it cannot generate .ics files directly in the code interpreter it is however very much capable of solving this particular problem. I did the following (all on my android phone):

1. Had it extract all the useful dates, times and comments from the pdf 2. Prompted it to generate the ics file formatted content as code output 3. Prompted it to use the code interpreter to put this content into a file and save it as a .ics extension

It complied through and through and I could download and open the file with the gcal app on my phone to import all appointments..

For completeness, the claim that the code interpreter cannot "generate" ics files is because the python environment in which it runs doesn't have a specific library for doing so. ICS files are just text files with a specific format, so definitely not out of reach.

Comment · 2 years ago
Oh, that's an interesting app and in French too... is that something you plan to have on Android as well?
Comment · 5 years ago
And that city be Mons, right?
Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
Indeed, I've seen anything between 1-2 meters and a small moose (SI unit of distance in the local zoo)..
Comment · 6 years ago
Let's face it, Amazon's review system is broken at the core. I have the perspective of a seller on Amazon and, as such, you simply don't exist without _positive_ reviews. For the story, it all begins when you start with Amazon as a channel. Ads would be an option to kick start a presence but you actually need some traffic (you actually need the "buy box" which is just Amazon's way to legitimate you as a seller) to be able to advertise (this is true at the very start on a given Amazon market). So you, or people you know, place _fake_ orders to get started and if possible add a first review which, naturally, is fake. Once you have that going, congrats, you are selling on Amazon. From there on it's a uphill battle to gain traction and it all comes down to better position for your products. This is not different from any market really but there are specific hurdles along the way. Amazon tracks the number of "defects" on your product which counts things like A-to-Z claims or... negative reviews (and more stuff I won't bother you with here). If you hit a threshold (1% of claims _or_ negative reviews) you start seeing a nice warning telling you that your account is at risk of deactivation. Additionally, a similar threshold or trend, unsure tbh, will result in a temporary loss of the buy box mentioned earlier (60 day look back window for the above-mentioned threshold). This means that you disappear! (no ads, remember?).

So, you can probably imagine how strong your incentives are to get any positive review juice out there. What is shown in the tweet is actually against Amazon's terms[1] but there are more (and less) subtle ways to get what you need including things mentioned in comments around here and you really don't have that much of a choice if you want to stand out in the noise.

With all that being said, whatever you think of delivery related reviews for instance (especially in covid times which has added a lot of uncertainty to the whole thing), they hurt businesses exactly where it hurts. And that can be extended to negative reviews in general even when these are legitimate warnings for other potential buyers. Imagine now for a second that you rely on low volumes of orders, the number of potential genuine reviews is also low and with the Amazon thresholds you are therefore literally at the mercy of a few bad reviews without a cushion of positive reviews to fall on. So yeah there is a market for fake reviews, duh...

[1] not the best link but there is a screenshot showing the terms in the thread where it says that you can't ask for positive reviews or give something in exchange for it.. https://sellercentral.amazon.com/forums/t/new-asking-for-rev...

Comment · 6 years ago
Same experience here... I even told them and they continue pushing.
Comment · 6 years ago
Yes, I didn't express that correctly; I know about the second price auction and what I was referring to is that since Google does everything in their power to get you away from keyword level bidding and into their "smart bidding" solutions you have no _direct_ say in what the traffic costs (AFAIK it's still possible to use keyword level bidding but Google will email you very regularly to try to get you off). This fact is even more obvious in non-competitive markets as I was trying to point out.
Comment · 6 years ago
Couldn't agree more, the adtech is where the monopoly lies. I worked for a doubleclick / ads 360 competitor and it was so plain that Google used its dominant position not only to squash competitors like us but also to further obscure the auction mechanisms. Today it's a challenge to specify exactly what you want to bid for a given keyword, in part for the better since it dramatically reduces complexity for advertisers but it does remove a lot of the control and hands it back to... Google. Ultimately the auction is completely irrelevant since Google decides which ads will show and by extension whose ad money they'll pocket. In addition to that, Google charges premium for ad space even in non-competitive markets; I'm talking about what you end up paying for a top spot although there are no other actors in the auction for a particular keyword (even in broader matches). While one could argue that it's up to them as a publisher to decide what a spot is worth, this mechanism is completely obscure and you will only ever find out in hindsight through what you pay for the traffic.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton