The trypophobia comparison is nonsense and the author is obviously just trying (and failing) to include a memey word in the hopes of minor virality.
And it’s always fun to hear ‘reveal the algorithm’ as though it’s KFC’s blend of spices.
Also complaining about the societal impact of bad content, then complaining that good content is sometimes inaccurately caught in a filter is just insane. The filters are either too strict or too soft, they can’t be both at the same time (human reviewers follow rules just like algos).
I’ve definitely noticed tech, especially tech press, getting much more political and negative in the last few years.
I don’t really know if it’s the WHOLE of tech (or just how it’s reported), but it definitely feels like a downer right now.
As a tech liberal dreamer, it’s totally getting to me.
I want to read about interesting new solutions to problems, but at the moment it seems mostly like negative press about Uber.
Obviously it’s responsible to call it when conpanies do bad things, but is tech really unethical on the scale of pharma or agrobusiness or fast food? Doesn’t seem so. ( I get that they’re tech press so they’ll only report on tech, but context would be nice).
Seems like a reasonable way to prevent overly-broad fishing by law enforcement. If they have a warrant they can request information through legal channels.
I did the same and filled it with things that are relevant to me, and now my ads are generally enjoyable — things I might not have otherwise known about.
There was a lot of cruft in there from the early days when it was easy to like everything. But after the cleanout my ads are definitely better.
Even not having service trade isn’t a great disaster. Companies with sizeable EU revenue can just set up a European subsidiary (in Ireland, etc) to conduct business in Europe from the UK (or anywhere).
(Though I accept it’ll be a pain for e.g. finance companies which the EU requires to be based within the EU,)
Startups eespecially aren’t held back by these rules right now, they just sell everywhere in USD (and at some point when they’re big enough create an EU subsidiary).
The goods thing would be a real issue, if everything on supermarket shelves became 1.5x as expensive. So as long as that’s solved it’ll be fine.
Probably not a novel thought, but what if appearing in the sky over, say, a 100 year period beginning with the discovery of nuclear technology (or earlier) is a way of ‘warming up’ contact races so we don’t die of shock when they land?
It wouldn’t be unreasonable. Any advanced race wouldn’t need to observe at close distance, and wouldn’t need to be detectable.
They may just wamt to sow a little ‘openness to big ideas’ into us. Look at the amount of alien literature and scifi movies there are? I guess it’s working.
This article expressed a lot of what I’ve been mulling for years.
I must’ve spent hours of my life poring over the Wikipedia HTTP Response Codes page, looking for the most expressive error code for my situation. It’s barmy.
Is the last part about licensing true (or sourced from somewhere)? Surely Amazon could just drop the Cast library into their iPhone and Android apps and they’d be all set? I can’t see Google stopping them (well maybe they would now it’s escalated, but they wouldn’t have last year.)
I assumed not supporting Cast was just an excuse not to stock Chromecasts etc on Amazon.
BTW I totally agree with the frustration of the Cast protocol not being more open, a tonne of cool standalone ‘browser on TV’ usecases like screensharing/dashboards/multiscreen aren’t possible on Chromecast (and it sucks). I assume they’re under a load of pressure from MPAA type groups to keep it locked down. (As though the TV is some holy box that must be protected.)
YouTube is probably the best placed brand in the whole market to offer a true OTT cable replacement. And Amazon wants to own that market with Channels.
Amazon would do anything to kill YouTube’s chances of making that happen, so I guess Google is firing some early warning shots!
I had been wondering why they were both so uppity about £30 dongles, but if they’re pre-competing for the £1000 a year cable market then it makes absolute sense!
They obviously just used deep learning to predict these were the kind of people who would want to do a cheesy video, and predicted cat food was an obvious topic they’d pick.
Yeah, I totally should’ve phrased that bit more carefully
The clearer, fuller argument would would be: if something terrible was to happen to Earth it would be objectively better (though obviously still a tragic and nightmarish event) if we only lost 95% of living humans vs losing 100%.
Also though it might also be worth a teensy bit more risk of near-complete wipeout to gain a backup. (e.g. the risk of migration to Mars causing economic or political issues back here that cause a terrible war or something). It’d be crazy hard to do the maths on that though.
You would also kind of assume though that as long as a tiny percentage lived, they would turn a lot more people than are currently alive over a few 1000s of years? So even if the worst happened the ethics would eventually balance out.
Given the amount of really really bad stuff that could happen to humans on Eart (disease, asteroids, super volcanos, sea level change, nuclear war, etc) having 5% safe somewhere else sounds like a great situation to be in. Doubt we’ll get there though.
Please no-one tell Jony.