Every rural area I've ever worked in had a non trivial number of folks who would have 2-3 drinks at the bar/whatever on a Friday or a Saturday and drive home. It was not alcoholism, it was "I'm totally fine to drive, the law doesn't know my limits" etc.
On some level that's just the price of wanting to go out and not wanting to drop a bunch of cash on a taxi (assuming you can get one to come).
2-3 drinks on a Friday night when you're supposed to drive home is different. I'd also say "I can drink because the law is wrong" is also not exactly a neutral take.
- I believe the law is overly proscriptive / strict / wrong.
- I believe I won't get caught
It's no different to someone speeding because "It's clear conditions and I consider myself to be perfectly safe at this speed". Or skipping a stop sign "I can clearly see nothing is coming".
> The phone rings, he can’t answer, the customer hangs up and calls someone else. That’s a lost job — sometimes a $450 brake service, sometimes a $2,000 engine repair — just gone because no one picked up.
Sure, that's a problem, but...
> Dane gets a list of callbacks to return — no lost leads.
Yeah. So. I'm still going to hang up, phone somewhere else, and you get no business. I'm also doubly annoyed because not only did you waste my time speaking to a computer, it couldn't answer the question so I'm now worse off than if you'd ignored the call.
Yeah - this scenario presupposes that if I need my car fixed I'm going to wait for you to give me a call back, rather than continue working down my list.
The AI doesn’t have to solve every problem to solve some problems. If it can answer 10% of questions, isn’t that 10% better than having all of them go to voicemail unanswered?
The data the bot has to work with is stated to already be available the website.
Therefore, I'd never call on the phone to find those answers -- but those are the only answers the bot has to offer.
The only reason I'd ever call is for answers that the website (and therefore, the bot) does not provide. Calling on the phone and getting a bot that insists on giving me data that I already have would only serve to waste my time and frustrate me.
It would probably frustrate me enough to hang up and call a different shop immediately, and name-and-shame the place.
I know how to Google shit. By the time I start dialing telephone numbers, I've already Googled this shit.
When I call a local shop I want to talk to someone at that local shop (or at very least, their voicemail) -- not a regurgitating bot.
But, again, that's just me.
---
So I'm imagining my dad, who's in his mid-70s and has never Googled a single thing in his entire life. At least superficially, he sounds like an ideal candidate that can be helped with this automated receptionist.
Except: When he calls the shop and has to talk to the bot instead of a person or their voicemail, he's also definitely hanging up immediately and calling the next place on his list. This doesn't help him at all, nor does it help the shop.
---
For the shop, the cost of frustrated people who vent to their friends about the experience may very well be higher the cost of not always being available to answer the phone.
Speed limits are a terrible proxy for actual risk, but the only reasonable way a government can implement anything tending towards "ffs stop killing each other whilst driving too fast for the conditions".
> “Shorting” a company does not just mean short selling stock. Instead, it means having a short position, which you can use without unlimited downside.
If you are an equity index holder anyway, simply by not holding any exposure in an otherwise "market" portfolio is a "short" relative to benchmark.
ie if I "buy" the SP500 constituents according to weight but with TSLA zero'd out my portfolio is essentially the same as long SP500 and short weigtht*TSLA.
Normally you buy into something like SP500 via something like an ETF, something with a very low fee because it’s managed entirely automatically via simple algorithms.
How can you invest in SP500 minus TSLA without racking up exorbitant fees?
Unless such a fund already exists, you’d be managing it yourself and pretty much wiping out any gains any time you rebalanced.
> How can you invest in SP500 minus TSLA without racking up exorbitant fees?
Various options…
1. Direct indexing (requires minimum amount of assets),
2. Certain actively-managed ETFs like GGRW, which is not exactly SP500 minus TSLA but it’s not too far off
3. Buying passively-managed ETFs in sectors that don’t include TSLA,
4. TSLQ, maybe. You get fees and other problems. I wouldn’t.
Direct indexing costs more than ETFs in terms of fees, but there’s apparently some kind of tax loss harvesting that you can do with direct indexing to offset the fees, and some people say you can come out ahead. I don’t understand how tax loss harvesting works at a satisfactory level (I’ve read articles and watched videos, but I think I would need to take an accounting class and really sit down with a spreadsheet before I could say that I understand how direct indexing and tax loss harvesting work together.)
Anyway. I come from the UK where we've had camera based enforcement for aeons. This of course actually results in people speeding and braking down to the limit as they approach the camera (which is of course announced loudly by their sat nav). The driving quality is frankly worse because of this, not better, and it certainly doesn't reduce incidence of speeding.
Of course the inevitable car tracker (or average speed cameras) resolve this pretty well.
Would that make the LLM (or the company who made it) liable under the DMCA for showing someone how to work around a digital lock that controls access to a copyrighted work.
> automatically kicking a user off would also probably be bad.
No. "Sorry, subscription has expired, please re-up your account" is an extremely reasonable UX.
The whole "free period but we'll auto bill you after" is a shitty dark pattern that mostly exists to extract value from life admin errors. The people who got enough value to justify the cost would've paid anyway.
Or they could just not autocharge people, or allow people to decide whether to autorenew or not when they sign up. The fact that they don't do that shows that they're trying to pull one over on people.
On some level that's just the price of wanting to go out and not wanting to drop a bunch of cash on a taxi (assuming you can get one to come).
reply