Interestingly, all of those either use cryptocurrencies as an investment, or merely provide cryptocurrency-based tools (of questionable utility), and leave the problem-solving to their users.
The same physical infrastructure that is also used for transporting just about everything else? Anyway, most currency transfer these days is digital, so even that doesn't hold much water.
A few months ago, I disabled all of that stuff, so that YouTube only recommends videos based on my subscriptions and liked videos. I guess it's still personalization, but it's personalization that I have control over, which seems to have drastically improved both the privacy and the quality of recommendations.
I don't use Google for search, though, so I can't comment on that.
English is neither a programming language nor a formal logic. When we see an "if" statement that would otherwise seem irrelevant, it is common to interpret it as an insinuation.
@hu3's misunderstanding is entirely understandable.
Well one alternative representation really took off, that one where code is is a dataflow graph, whose nodes are all one-liners on a massive grid. I wonder what led to its success, where so many other interesting ideas have failed?
Yes; the Mill architecture's (I'm beginning to think it'll never be released) answer to that is to make compiling the code from an intermediate representation either just before runtime or at install time a normal part of the process.
> there have always been business models to support publishing and providing services that do not rely on adverstising and these models are well known
I am sure that these models exist, I just don't know about them because I haven't done the research. It would be easier for everyone if you just listed a few viable funding models for a search giant.
> Push advertising is unethical and culturally toxic
That is your opinion, and not one that most people share — most people think that advertising is an acceptable trade-off for good search results. If you want to persuade people of anything, you'll have to meet them where they're at, either by convincing us first that advertising is "unethical and culturally toxic", or by using some other argument.
You have made broad, sweeping remarks about the ethics of dairy farming and it's only here that you considerably narrow the scope of your statements to farms that you deem ethical.
Yes, some farms may operate in line with an acceptable standard of ethics, but for many people, it is easier to live a vegan lifestyle than to carefully ensure that all their dairy is ethically sourced.
> Videos are not games. Literally different words.
Well yes, but this is a game streaming app. It just captures input from the user and sends back a video of the game, running in the cloud.
> It's a private company and they can do what they want.
And we are individuals who can complain as much as we want; this is a non-argument.
> I appreciate their oversight, because now I know that I can't get hacked by Microsoft allowing bad games on their app!
The games are totally isolated from your phone, so they can't hack you, unless they're somehow using the input from your phone as a ridiculously low-bandwidth side channel.
What's unimpressive about a stunningly believable parrot? I think, at the very least, that GPT-3 is knowledgeable enough to answer any trivia you throw at it, and creative enough to write original poetry that a college student could have plausibly written.
Not everything worth doing is as high-stakes as buying stocks, making chemical formulas, or building planes.