> The cheapie appliances are the ones that will be subsidized by the insane data collection policies, just like TVs are now.
How does that work if I buy the appliance outright? I mean on their end: I buy it, I don't let it talk to the Internet, the company loses ad revenue and... what? Break into my place and steal it from me?
I’m guessing ‘Smart’ features are going to be tied into network connections. Also, very possible future appliances having no physical buttons and requiring a separate internet device (which can support ads) to work.
The problem arises when there's outside pressure to use the tools, or now you're maintaining code written by someone else through the use of the tools, where it could have been good enough for them because they don't have to deal with downstream effects. At least that's been my negative experience with AI coding assistance. You could say "just get a new job" but unfortunately that's hard.
>You're maintaining code written by someone else through the use of these tools, where it could have been good enough for them.
I believe everyone has to deal with that, AI or not. There are bad human coders.
I've done integration for several years. There are integrations done with tools like Dell Boomi (no-code/low-code) that work but are hard to maintain, like you said. But what can you do? Your employer uses that tool to get it running until it can't anymore, as most no-code/low-code tools can get you to your goal most of the time. But when there's no "connector" or third-party connector that costs an arm and a leg, or hiring a Dell Boomi specialist to code that last mile, which will also cost an arm or a leg, then you turn to your own IT team to come up with a solution.
It's all part of IT life. When you're not the decision-maker, that's what you have to deal with. I'm not going to blame Dell Boomi for making my work extra hard or whatnot. It's just a tool they picked.
I am just saying that a tool is a tool. You can see many real life examples where you'll be pressured into using a tool and maintaining something created by such a tool, and not just in IT but in every field.
The last libertarian post I saw wasn't getting downvoted and it was by a guy who wanted to set up meetings with cartels to improve the efficiency of their drug dealing business.
The causes of obesity in the US are well known and reported on, just not as "health" pieces. Food deserts, car-centric infrastructure, poor work-life balance, rising costs of groceries, low access to preventative screens. The only novel research in my opinion would deal with micro plastics and the effect they have on hormones.
For your convenience, here's a link to a conversation started by someone else saying the same thing & then actually providing sources (that don't necessarily support their claim): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45466504
A number of YouTubers have made the claim that their views were affected but not revenue, so it seems like the monetization is based on ad-watching views at least.
The entire way this issue was figured out was because it only affected desktop views that weren't monetized to begin with, which the guy in the linked video guessed meant adblockers.
If the monetization weren't limited to ad-watching views, we'd probably still be trying to figure out what happened.
Presumably, it would affect that, and also long-term channel growth. Which would be dastardly if it were intentional, because it would basically cull the platform of channels who voice support for ad blocking.
I wonder if CTR was affected. Could one of the affected channels could have detected that not adding up? I guess it was probably already blocked for privacy. Maybe I shouldn't be giving them ideas.
Interestingly, anybody can now measure what percentage of any channel's viewers run ad blockers, by using publicly available data on how much their views dropped during this period.
Just to be clear, YouTube doesn’t pay users based on view count, it revenue shares based on money generated by ads and subscriptions. Using an ad blocker without premium has always meant the creator doesn’t get paid for the views, because that traffic generates no revenue for them to share
No, but the algorithm puts their content in front of people in part based on how many views it has gotten. Or does whatever the heck the shadowy black box wants it to.
Yes but with the intent that they generate revenue, if ad blocked users had distinct behavior different from ad watching users it was mostly ignored while I was there
For better or worse a gigantic portion of people who make their livelihoods on the internet are fully dependent on closed source platforms. Do you think people who sell things on Shopify or Etsy are any more able to scrutinize the systems they depend on to make a living?
So what's your suggestion for how YouTube could be doing better here?
Especially in the scenario that (as the top level comment in this thread suggests) YouTube didn't actually make any changes and the reason the views dropped is because EasyList added an entry to their privacy filter. Should YouTube have recognized that they're in a quasi-monopoly position as you suggest, done the research to identify EasyList as the culprit behind the view metric drop, and then released a change to their client to add a new endpoint which isn't blocked by EasyList?
We don't know that the EasyList theory is what's really going on here, but if you're going to tar YouTube/Google over this ordeal, then I think you have some responsibility for suggesting how they could have done better.
Elden Ring is a great example of a game where the difficulty is largely self-imposed, if you play using all the tools the devs give you like summons, magic, certain weapons, etc the game becomes almost trivialized. Not saying that's a bad thing necessarily, in fact the opposite, I think FromSoft's "difficulty slider" replacement is one of the best ways of going about it, however I think the difficulty overall is overstated by the "real souls players" who hamper themselves so as to experience all of the mechanics.
If you sous vide for a long time, the entirety of the steak will be at the same temperature, while pan searing cooks the outside to a higher temperature than the inside, which results in the core temperature going up a few degrees during resting.
Yes exactly. It all has to do with the thermal conductivity of the meat. Meat tends to be a fairly good insulator which means it takes a long time for heat to conduct through a thick piece of meat (such as a large roast or a pork shoulder). This means that cooking at a temperature above your target internal temp (most conventional cooking methods, not sous vide) will produce a fairly steep thermal gradient between the outside of the meat and the core. Resting the meat allows heat to flow down the gradient to bring the overall temperature closer towards equilibrium.
Another important effect during cooking is the breakdown of collagen fibres (present in tough connective tissues which make some cuts of meat very tough to chew). This occurs in the presence of moisture at temperatures above 170F. When collagen breaks down the meat tenderizes and the collagen itself turns into gelatine which absorbs moisture and retains it within the meat. A gelatine-rich cut of slow-cooked meat (such as oxtail) can be very sticky and packed with flavour. This is one case where food can taste juicier with longer cooking times.
The income inequality in Norway is roughly half that of the US, and the quality of life of the bottom income bracket is much higher there, due to social policies. Why lie about things that can easily be looked up?
The Gini coefficient is similar so I have no idea where you're getting the idea that income equality in Norway is "half" that of the US. And the US has consistently had a positive net migration rate with Norway so regardless of your nonsense claims about quality of life people seem to be voting with their feet.
When I first started my current job I was upset that I'd have to pay $20/paycheck to get some unknown level of benefits, which comes out to around $500/year but all I had to do to understand the benefit was compare my health insurance premium to someone working a non-union gig for the same employer and realize that they're paying a way higher percentage of the monthly premium than I was. Not to mention that the union provides guaranteed unemployment benefits if you get laid off and help finding jobs, transportation funds, childcare funds, and guaranteed me a salary increase this year when the employer has declared a freeze on raises for non-union positions. I agree there should be more advertising on the part of the union with regards to benefits but they are pretty obvious if you do any reading.
A lot of the benefits my union provides might not matter to the average HN user making $X00,000/yr though so who knows?
reply