TwilightVulpine @ TwilightVulpine @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

897

Joined

2 yr. ago

Must be the royal we.

"Normie crypto" sounds like an oxymoron

Sounding like you do want to argue about this. If you don't think this is a big deal then maybe stop nagging people over petty stuff.

You are the one who are trying to make a big deal over what people ought to do and how the world works over ads. If you don't think that's not worth arguing about, then I dunno why you're still at it.

I definitely don't think using an ad blocker is a moral battleground, I'm more baffled by the idea that Google needs defending over this.

They definitely do and they did do that for a while, but apparently it changed.

If you want to be this cynical about it I can only tell you one thing: the world does work like that, because people can get away with it and they do.

Yeah corporations can decide to sell our time, eyeballs and data for smaller and smaller fractions of a penny without asking us. Because clearly it isn't about what is fair and equitable, it's not about making sure every party gets what they deserve, it's about what they can get away with.

Considering how much tech companies get away with, if anyone wants to moralize over not giving them what they demand, I can only laugh.

This is a distinction that some defenders miss. A lot of people who use ad-blockers would be fine with ads if they were restrained and not too obtrusive. But the amount and frequency of ads only seem to increase. Something that would be difficult to justify, because time does not suffer inflation.

We went from 1 skippable 5 second ad per video to multiple ads every 10 minutes or so, sometimes even unskippable 15+ second ads or even more ads in a row. When is it going to be enough? Are we supposed to take them on their word that this is necessary, simply assuming that they need it because they don't even share financial numbers? Is our only other option to pay up, once again, the amount that they decided is a fair compensation and also keep increasing?

Seems that at the very least some way for the users to negotiate what they believe is fair is lacking in this matter. On the lack of that, no wonder some people just decide they refuse to be squeezed forever.

There is something fundamentally wrong with Capitalism. Watching the unhinged ways corporations behave pushes me further to the left every day.

I kinda get your point, but is there even any competition when it comes to YouTube? Everybody pretty much accepts it's the only viable publicly available online video publishing platform. Who are they even competing with? Twitch and TikTok work in a completely different ways that don't really supplant it. Vimeo and Dailymotion are so small they might as well not exist. Seems like they are still keeping at it even bereft of competition.

Not only the way they keep pushing more and more ads is becoming way too much, they don't have any standards for what sort of ads they push. From blatant political propaganda to petty false advertising of apps. A reckoning is way overdue.

That makes sense too. Overall, a lot of people's jobs are threatened, but I don't think "learn AI" is going to cut it this time. Not for all these people.

It seems unwise to replace managers with LLMs because LLMs don't understand the real world implications of their responses, they don't have awareness of the real world, they simply give you often used language patterns, which can be innacurate or biased based on flawed human data. But it would be a great way for sketchy human executives to offload responsibility for unethical actions and feign objectivity or uninvolvement, so I don't doubt they will try.

Even if we imagine a perfect AI that does takes into account every objective fact and philosophical argument, that still leaves the question of how will the people who get replaced in all these intellectual, artistic and service jobs will make a living. That's not an answer that technology will give us, that will a nasty political situation.

I definitely remember those days, a lot of sites were just unusable, and I hear some places like the Fandom wiki are returning to that level.

I believe there is a small amount of ads it's acceptable to live with, I do accept that content needs to be paid for somehow, but corporations can't seem to ever accept a limit for themselves. Even though YouTube is already perfectly profitable and has been for years, it continues to escalate. Not to mention the rampant data-tracking that there is all over the place that people just accept because it's invisible. Or that Google is working to weaken ad blocking and enhance tracking at a browser level.

Seems to me like the Wonder Seeds might make it much more replayable than NSMB because every stage will have unique variations you can engage with on top of the typical run.

Which, come to think of it, seems like it's applying some ideas of the 3D Marios into a 2D one. Replaying stages with unique missions and gameplay twists is a staple of 3D Mario since 64.

By its nature, Large Language Models won't ever be truly innovative, after all they rely on expected patterns. But a lot of the media that we consume is also made to appeal to patterns that we expect: genres, tropes, usual messages. AI could replace a lot of it and frankly, that's scary to think in a world where we need to work to earn our living.

Truly groundbreaking art may not be what people usually seek, it's often something they don't even know they want until they experience it, or they might even fail to appreciate it. But it likely won't be automated unless AI achieves full consciousness, but if it does we will have a much more complicated situation in our hands than "we can command AI to make art better than we can do ourselves".

Still, getting paranoid over the uncertain latter won't help us with the former that is just around the corner.

Older poorer people. Younger poorer people stuff a bunch of songs in an USB stick.

I was fine with ads a couple years ago, but the number, length and frequency of them keeps ramping up. This wouldn't need to be such a struggle if they just were reasonable about it.

Sometimes people think they know the obvious answer and they turn out to be wrong. It's good to have clear evidence of what is going on.

Most people may not be on Lemmy, but don't forget that there are far more poorer people than those who are well-off. They don't endure price hikes and splitting services as much as others might.

So they would rather take in more debt at an unfavorable time than to maintain a profitable leading business or even to limit research investment to a sustainable level? That really makes it sound like being unprofitable is a choice rather than an inevitable reckoning with a fundamental unsustainability of the business.

Yet ultimately they make up for those excesses by squeezing the customers more.

If investors, knowing all that you do for this long, continue to approve this approach, then it seems like it's itself a mechanism to try to extract more out of a market that could have been stable. In which case referring to it as an inevitability to be blamed on customers who aren't really paying its worth doesn't seem quite accurate. After all, if they were, the investors would be seeking to expand in some manner, right? Which means these businesses aren't allowed to simply be profitable, and customers will always be on the hook for that.

But still they can't be quite so unprofitable to be unsustainable or they would just fall apart. If hollow hype was enough to keep investors in, we wouldn't see tech fads come and go so quickly. Seems to me that most tech companies don't get to survive their "unprofitability" for so long.