liquid_thyme

Sure, If ranking is done purely based on clicks and not quality. I'm just thinking of it as a meta "loss" function in the AI context. So I'd say its the passionate enthusiasts who care enough to provide feedback on such topics.

Dystopian future where AI pumps out slop and uses human feedback and comments to correct the output.

>The thing is, LLM's produce better quality one-shots than any of the products that get returned from overseas ultra-budget contractors in India or SEA.

Source?

They use data from the poor student tier, but arguably, large corporates and businesses hiring talented devs are going to create higher quality training data. Just looking at it logically, not that I like any of this...

Since this exodus (year of the linux desktop has been promised every year since 1998) has not yet happened, there is likely an actual reason (or several) that people choose to stay on Windows.

I use both, but prefer linux to stay behind the scenes on my servers. Windows has been a solved problem for me for the past couple of decades. Here's a random 100 day uptime screenshot that I found from 2017, https://imgur.com/a/PRp9L50. These days I usually shutdown more often to not waste power, and my NVMe makes bootups instant anyway.

As per https://endoflife.date/macos only 3 MacOS versions are under active support. Also I would wager that most people upgrade the OS anyway due to the piss-poor backwards compatibility for software - Xcode being a prime example.

There is no excuse for poor software when you only have to support a tiny number of hardware variations.

Google takes money to bypass their spam filters. They call those ads.

Um, Capital sits at the bottom of the payment waterfall, labor, suppliers, lenders, creditors all have priority claims. Capital returns are vastly more volatile than labor compensation. Most startups burn and die, but employees still get paid (keeping illegal practices aside). Capital bears most of the uncertainty that labor doesn't.

To argue your point, the strongest argument is that labor cannot easily diversify or easily re-train for new sectors. But there aren't entire job sectors being wiped out with any kind of regularity or high frequency. Mostly people take skills from one job into another.

And speaking more about the US, social safety nets (not arguing that they're perfect) have some role to play when labor faces downsides. There is no "unemployment" for a company (again I'm talking about average businesses without cherry picking the too big to fail examples - which are a tiny percentage when looking at the number of small/medium/large businesses that operate around the world).

Cherry picking examples to paint broad brush/strokes doesn't work. There are game companies all over the world, and have varying levels of work/life balance. Your crude caricature is just that; crude.

A rational person would agree that unions, like anything else, have pros and cons. They can do good, but also can do harm. It's the commenters here seem to fly off on emotional rants that derail the conversations. The thinking is capital takes less risk than labor; and that model of thinking makes it easy to ascribe faults to capital, but not to labor. You can't argue your way out of that. When you have to manage a bunch of employees and run payroll, bonuses, benefits, increments, that is when you'll know who takes more risk.

Apple and Microsoft need to wake up and bake it into the OS. Hopefully that will take meta and google down a notch.

They created the largest spying instrument in the world that creates hidden profiles (that can never be deleted) documenting web activity, psychological state, medications, etc, etc for billions of people - and have been caught multiple times sharing data with governments (they're probably compromised internally anyway). I would categorize that as unethical. But yeah, you can cheer for the scraps they throw out.

>about things that barely even register to most people.

News flash: This whole website is about things that don't register to most people. It's called hacker news FFS.

In any case, I think a trillion dollar company probably doesn't need defending. They can easily tweak their algorithm to bury this type of stuff; after all this opinion is probably not "relevant" or "useful" to most people.

I really don't know how they got nerds to think scummy advertising is cool. If you think about it, the thing they make money on - no user actually wants ads or wants to see them, ever. Somehow Google has some sort of nerd cult that people think its cool to join such an unethical company.

>You might not think it is, but internet is filled utterly dangerous, scammy, phisy, malwary websites

Google is happy to take their money and show scammy ads. Google ads are the most common vector for fake software support scams. Most people google something like "microsoft support" and end up there. Has Google ever banned their own ad domains?

Google is the last entity I would trust to be neutral here.

Its everywhere. You get nagged constantly for Apple music on your iphone too. My dystopian prediction is that in the near future, corporations will just garnish your wages so they don't have to do this.

That may be, and we certainly don't need anyone explaining Google's position - we already know what that is. Nobody here actually cares what Google wants, we're expressing what we want. Nerds have helped Google enough with free marketing and goodwill, Google's reputation being tarnished can only help us not hurt us.

Many phishing attacks originate from Google's owns domains. Gmail users phishing others, scammy youtube videos, scammy comments with links to scams, scammy ads to fake banking pages, etc, etc. But Google would never be hypocritical, never!!

You really think talking to a human and a bot is the same?

If lockin allows you to ship quality software and tight integration across your product line, there is probably a rationale there. People defend Apple - presumably because of this.

Lock-in actually helps internal development. If you're targeting fixed hardware, writing software gets a lot easier.

Your "guess" is not logical.

My prediction is that they're going to slowly ban them from their properties, and also from websites where their ads are hosted. They will slowly pressurize Mozilla and anyone else they're funding.

Not anymore..

https://imgur.com/a/CARfuHZ

A browser spying on users for marketing purposes is a disqualifier for me.

Even if you had 1000 developers who worked for free, you can't get a billion people to care about software quality beyond a certain point.

Yes, but also paying for distribution and paying for it to be the default browser.

I meant paying for distribution via the usual channels (toolbar vector, s/w bundling, etc) and paying for their browser as a default with system integrators.

They also had a good browser (before it became spyware), but there is no conceivable way to get a billion people to care about javascript performance and memory usage.

I wish them well, but browsers are very much pay-to-play. Google had to pay their way to their current dominant position.

Pricing in healthcare is very tightly regulated and there isn't a simple one line answer for why certain prices are they way they are. Its easy to scapegoat bigpharma for being greedy, but they're just as greedy as any other US corporation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_reference_pricing

I only brought up YouTube because when a company is free to set their price, you will still end up with a pricing model where the pricing is different based on region.

YouTube Premium is also cheaper in Bangladesh.