Re: my heart bleeds
Ahoy! Good for them!
1322 publicly visible posts • joined 2 Sep 2019
If we assume the time savings measurement is precise (and we probably shouldn't), it doesn't seem that much. But also, it doesn't necessarily mean an increase in productivity. Experiments on reducing work time, like 4-days week, often show counterintuitive results that the overall productivity does not change significantly; and people working twice more hours are not twice more productive either.
Indeed, we don't really need everybody to work anymore. During the past century, entertainment has soaked up more and more human activity, but even that is getting more efficient and the industry doesn't seem like it needs to grow much more. But then again, perhaps we don't need everybody to work. There is already a significant part of the population that doesn't need to work — they're retired. Of course, currently this is seen as the reward for working long enough to reach that state, but there is no fundamental need for it to be so. We can have a civilization where less people work, and shorter hours, and if some want to work more to have more money they can, but it's not necessary to live. I think we can get there, though the transition will be slow, and some assumptions have to change. Universal basic income does not have widespread acceptance, but in practice many European countries already have a social security net which is strong enough that technically if you are willing to live cheaply you don't need to work at all. I think it's going to be more and more common.
Th biggest issue might be to find ways to motivate humanity not to disappear out of boredom.
Rather than having it bought by a necessarily large and well-funded tech company which will immediately start abusing users for its own ends, why not set it up as a separate independent company? Most of the cost of maintaining a browser is actually maintaining the engine, which in this case is Chromium and maintained separately, with many different companies contributing, in their own interest, and I doubt that Google would stop contributing either.
It is probably not difficult for Chrome to find sources of revenue. The first coming to mind is of course a sliver of ads shown on the browser from all major ad publishers, with some checks ensuring that these deals are non-discriminatory.
Well the point is that at least they have to pay for it, so it puts a price on the pollution. It technically gives them an incentive to pollute less, which otherwise they wouldn't have to care about. Now if you think they should pay more, that's a different question. I hear carbon offsets are full of fraud, e.g. golf courses getting paid for not cutting the trees, making the prices too low.
For months, it would ask me to choose whether I wanted to start paying, or accept my data to be used for ads. I never answered. I hoped eventually they would give up and just show me ads without using my data, but what I got is even better: I have no ads in Facebook. They probably did not implement ads that don't use private data, so they can't show me anything.
I think it's useless to try to find a grand strategy or mastermind behind any of this. The whole thing is pushed by people thinking "I can make money", "I can get promoted", or other similar intentions. They're selling the dream, and they'll get rich long before people wake up.
The effect is not the same — in each market, sales tax and VAT apply to all products sold in that market equally. People buying a cars in the EU need to pay VAT, whether the car was built in the EU or the US, and people buying cars in the US need to pay sales tax, wherever the car was built in the EU or the US. Import duties, on the other hand, only apply on cars built somewhere else.
Yeah, Hanlon's razor might apply here.
I'm not sure it's dynamite that policies require selling to the public? I thought that's half the work of politicians. I don't even find it controversial TBH. When politicians decide to raise the age of retirement because there are more and more old people and not enough young people to pay for their pension, I imagine doing the simple math is much easier than convincing the public that this is necessary.
In many ways, assistants were promised to be like artificial intelligence, in the sense they would understand what you meant and would react to your commands. That's when the movie Her came out. The problem is that there was hardly any intelligence behind, so each separate action had to be coded manually and maintained individually by an army of developers. They were already having trouble maintaining existing actions when ChatGPT came out, and that pretty much sealed their fate. I'm not entirely sure that AI stuff like Gemini can even replace them though. It's probably going to be a while before Gemini can be asked to turn on the lights or play a song — and I wouldn't be surprised if the connections to the light and sound systems and everything else still needs to be maintained by an army of developers.
Basically, Microsoft offering a rebate on Windows to customers who use Azure is similar to them selling Azure at a loss, which as you say would be anti-competitive. If your product has a dominant position in one market, it is not allowed to offer a discount on a bundle of that product with another product in a different market, because that means you are selling the other product at a loss.
Then they're being told: they can't bundle it, like a cable TV provider bundles channels. They can't optimize it for the systems that they're running it on. They can't do anything with it, unless someone else is doing it, too, in the same way, for the same cost. How does this make sense?
Because they have a dominant or quasi-monopoly position. Which means that by using that position as leverage, they could threaten users into accepting massively disadvantageous conditions and suppress their competitors. This is about as if the unique internet provider in your area would bundle their service with a bag of dog shit that you don't want, but that you are forced to buy every month if you want internet.
But, strangely, there is no circle in Dante's inferno for leaders who betray their people.
Hold on! At the very bottom of hell sits Satan, who has three faces and three mouths gnawing at the very worst people, which are Judas, Brutus and Cassius. I understand that this is because Judas betrayed God, and Brutus and Cassius betrayed the Republic. Doesn't that count?
I don't think that's correct that the theft is the only thing that matters — if it was, the big AI companies could have absolved themselves of any liability by just paying for one single reproduction of the works they used. Even the most prolific creators would hardly get more than a few thousand bucks for that, and that's clearly not enough to compensate them from the fact their style can now be copied at mass scale for cheap.