minhduong243

I am not sure after reading his article what Brad is in favor of and what he is against. Juding the work, not the tool. Absolutely. AI at the end of the day is just a tool. How we wield it matters. "Augmenting ourselves with tools is what humans do." We need to define the "augmenting ourselves" in this debate.

As an immigrant, English not my first language. AI definitely makes my writing "sound" better. However, I don't see my personality in such output. It's definitely easier to write stuff using AI, but should we do that? Writing sharpens thinking. It takes a lot of energy to write something and to write it well, but writers benefit from the act of writing. I believe we should all do it.

Do we need to be great at slapping labels on bottles? No. Do we need to be great at plowing a field when there is a machine to help with that? No. Do we need to engage in writing to some extent? I believe so.

"First, all of the weaknesses of LLMs are being addressed by exponential increases in compute"

Are we sure about that? Because I have not seen evidence on this. I kinda subscribe to LeCun's argument that LLMs cannot be "fixed" with more compute. But I am open to any counter-argument and evidence to the contrary.

"Second, the number of people who need to wield AI effectively for demand to skyrocket is decreasing."

I am not even sure what this means. What does "wield AI effectively" mean? What does the whole sentence mean?

"Third, the economic returns from using agents aren’t just impactful on the bottom line, but the top line as well."

What evidence do we have on AI helping companies generate more revenue organically because of its capabilities, not because of the demand for components? Google and Facebook, likely. The same article even said that consumers did not care about agents when it came to buying Apple products. Yes, we have heard Apple is behind in AI for months and guess what, more people are warmed up to the idea that the company might be smart all along.

"what has Apple done to inspire faith that they can do a better job?"

Or maybe because consumers don't care about agents or AI just because business executives, analysts or influencers like the author keep talking about agents and AI? If AI can make a product better, great! But should Apple focus on delivering the best products and experience possible whether or not it involves AI? Or should it deliver AI at all costs?

Anthropic found a product market fit, a clientele that finds value in paying for an LLM, whether it's real efficiency or just an excuse to cut costs. OpenAI must continue to ship models. That's how it keeps the music going. But a lot of consumers don't want to pay for something that doesn't justify the monthly cost that is just going to get more expensive.

In this case, he is entitled to liking or disliking the experience watching the game on VP. I read that several liked the experience, but he absolutely can have a different opinion. What I am talking about here is that he implied to know more about the product than Apple, which started the project way back in 2015 and has more information than he does. We can all like or dislike a product or opine on a strategy or a state of a business, but claiming to know more about a product, esp one like VP, than the company itself, looking outside in, is too much imo.

Surprise surprise, a long-time Apple hater who got a lot of things wrong on the company and who has not worked on hardware thinks he understands the hardware more than the company. I get that everyone can be disappointed with a product, but thinking he knows more about a product as sophisticated as Vision Pro than Apple is something else. I stopped reading his stuff a long time ago and it seems nothing changed

I agree with you that RH may put a cap on rewards earnings or change the program later. We have seen issuers take away travel benefits before, but I haven't seen a lot, if any, cards that roll back rewards.

For me, because the RH CEO in an interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT5OMUdaZtg) said he wanted the card to be profitable on a standalone basis, I just don't see it that way, but you can be right for all I know.

I got one part, at least it seems, wrong in my blog, that was my bad. I just want to say I did not forget about the interest income side of the card, I just don't think it will be profitable. Again I can be wrong. But thanks for the interaction.

I don't think you can simply "sell" customer information in the financial industry. It's a heavily regulated industry. RH can use information from the card to cross-sell its loans, if customers allow marketing communication. But I don't think they can just profit from allowing a 3rd-party access to that data. I never heard of a card issuer monetize their customer data that way. If you have an example, please do share.

If you scroll down the page of this product, you will see that the card is issued by Coastal Community Bank. It's common that a popular technology firm partners with a bank to issue credit cards.

Yes, APR is going to be 20%+ and even 30%+, but not all cardholders will revolve. Some, if not many, will be transactors and won't pay any interest at all. There is also cost of funds and losses. There is a reason why there is no other 3% cash back card on the market. The most popular set-and-forget card out there is 2% cash back.

I don't work for them or any firm related to them. Just thought it was worth sharing

Calling the App Store Apple's side hustle is weird as best and practically wrong. Someone's blog is a side hustle to their full-time job. Not blogging for days likely wouldn't affect their ability to make ends meet. But how would the whole Apple ecosystem function without this "side hustle"?

"To put it another way, the Epic case may have shown that Apple’s policies around the App Store were (mostly) legal, but that didn’t mean they were right; now the DOJ, looking for another point of vulnerability, is trying to make the case that Apple’s right approach in delivering an integrated experience is in fact illegal."

It is legal but it is not right, but the government is trying to prove that its right approach is illegal? What does it even mean?

There are multiple interests in this ecosystem. Consumers', Apple's, shareholders', small developers and big developers. And they have different interests, often conflicting. By "being right", right by whom? Who is to say that they know how to appease every party in this ecosystem?

I have several issues with the points made in this article

First is the Hardware cycle which the author admitted himself is a stretch. Because it is. So not sure why it is there

Second, the slower growth of AWS and Azure, how can we be sure if it's because of increased interest rates and not because of big numbers laws? AWS itself generated $21 billion in Q4 2022. How fast can you grow at that size? I am sure interest rates have some impact but it should not be the sole reason for slower growth. AWS is still growing and very profitable.

Third, claiming ATT fixed a problem that doesn't exist is not correct. Surveillance tracking without user consent is a real problem.

Last, when Jassy said advertising, did he mention mobile advertising though? Mobile advertising does not mean every type of advertising. If there is no data, how does he know ATT's impact was underestimated? Financial Times ran an article claiming that ATT's impact on FB was about $10 billion. There was no link to the research or article for that number. FB ran away with that number and made the same claim. But even if that number were true, FB still has billions of users and generates a lot of money. Plus, they already lapped the period impacted by ATT. What investors were worried about is Mark's obsession with VR and the big investments into the field. The layoff is FB's attempt to be leaner and recover investor trust. So I am not sure why ATT is even in the discussion.

Feels like some of these points are forced...

This article said none of Netflix's competitors had positive cash flow. Well, at least Disney did. Disney+ is unlikely to have positive cash flow, but the Walt Disney company has a cash cow in parks and other media assets. This Stratechery article seems to conveniently ignore that unlike Netflix, other streaming services have revenue-generating assets to fund the streaming war.

It cost Disney $400 million to make the Avatar sequel and probably that amount for marketing. Yet it already has made $2 billion in box office. Netflix spent $200 million on the Gray Man. How much did the movie bring to Netflix? Disney and Warner Bros have incredible franchises. What does Netflix have in comparison?

I also don't see any mention on the fact that while competitors are increasing content spend, Netflix is doing the opposite. If it's the new content, rather than the old stuff, that attracts subscribers, should the fact that Netflix is decreasing content spend be a concern?

If Netflix's future is about creativity and content quality, why should we believe that Netflix will be better at creating quality content in the future than they have so far? What data shows that subscribers come back because Netflix content is the best? Or is it because they have the biggest catalogue? And what does it say about decreasing content spend when Netflix is stretched across markets?

I don't dispute Reed's achievements, but citing the launch of the ads tier is a bit premature and strange. Reed, for years, pushed back against the idea of an ads-supported plan. He only changed his mind only when he had to. Yes, Netflix launched the ads operations in a few months' time, but we haven't got any concrete data on it.

I just bought from this store. Waiting for shipment

https://trf-ny.com/collections/soy-sauce/products/turubishio

AppleTV+ has the highest average IMDb score for its streaming library (7.08/10), for the 2nd year running (2021 and 2022), but has the smallest library of content.

The rate of returns for online sales in 2021 was 20.8%. 10% of such returns was deemed fraudulent

Uber Eats helped 400,000+ US merchants generate $11 billion in sales from October 2020 through September 2021. Eats facilitated 500+ million orders in the U.S, delivered by 2 million couriers. Globally, 3 million customers ordered grocery and convenience items delivered.

Their deal with NFL just got moved up one year early as well.