> If you want me to believe that, you're going to have to be more specific about what that "stuff" is.
not the person you were talking to but I think for well over 50% of young men, dating apps are simply an exercise in further reducing one's self worth.
> not the person you were talking to but I think for well over 50% of young men, dating apps are simply an exercise in further reducing one's self worth.
It totally get that, but dating apps != dating. If dating apps don't work, do something else (that isn't a chatbot).
If tech dug you into a hole, tech isn't going to dig you out. It'll only dig you deeper.
tell that to a world that had devices put infront of them at a young age where dating is tindr.
> If tech dug you into a hole, tech isn't going to dig you out. It'll only dig you deeper.
There are ways to scratch certain itches that insulate one from the negative effects that typically come from the traditional IRL ways of doing so. For people already scarred by mental health issues (possibly in part due to "growing up" using apps) the immediate digital itch scratch is a lot easier, with more predictable outcomes then the arduous IRL path.
> tell that to a world that had devices put infront of them at a young age where dating is tindr.
Their ignorance has no bearing on this discussion.
> There are ways to scratch certain itches that insulate one from the negative effects that typically come from the traditional IRL ways of doing so. For people already scarred by mental health issues (possibly in part due to "growing up" using apps) the immediate digital itch scratch is a lot easier, with more predictable outcomes then the arduous IRL path.
It's pretty obvious that kind of twisted thinking is how someone arrives at "an AI girlfriend sounds like a good idea."
But it doesn't back up the the claim that "AI girlfriends/boyfriends are healthier than online dating." Rather it points to a situation where they're the unhealthy manifestation of an unhealthy cause ("people already scarred by mental health issues (possibly in part due to "growing up" using apps)").
Honestly, it bugs me less. I think that interaction with people is important. But with animals and plants you are at least dealing with beings that have needs you have to care about to keep them healthy. With bots, there are no needs, just words.
Lol, in this comment chain, I, personally, shall judge all of the quality of human connection based on vibes.
Gamifying the needs depends on the intent. If you care about people wellbeing it's a force for good, if you seek to manipulate the people using advanced mechanisms it's evil.
Ultra popular romance book to balance needs of a woman is okay if the book was written by a human, and even that only as long as there is effort to connect outside of it. It's preferable to trash talk the husband behind his back over a glass of prosecco with 3 and exactly 3 friends.
Keep them coming, happy to answer. Just don't ask me for proofs, here I deal with vibes.
What about men, are they allowed to play single player video games with bots in it when they have an option to play with humans? ...or are we only judging women in here?
Men and women playing single player games only with bots is a different beast, because the primary intent isn't to seek connection and emotional support.
To judge men on a bad example one needn't go further than the word "waifu". That's bad.
Also, to flip the previous situation, men will never admit to reading such novels. Men cannot seek emotional support from other men, that's not how it works. So in the case of insufficient emotional support from wife men should "man up" and start drinking.
all humans want sometimes, is to be told that what they're feeling is real or not. A sense of validation. It doesn't necessarily matter that much if its an actual person doing it or not.
Yes, it really, truly does. It's especially helpful if that person has some human experience, or even better, up-to-date training in the study of human psychology.
An LLM chat bot has no agency, understanding, empathy, accountability, etc. etc.
was this place one of those who suffered firings as a result of the government shutdown? I believe at least 1,000 employs at nuclear facilities have been fired.
Speaking of which, what the fuck is wrong with product managers at big tech these days?
When I try to express:
> I don't want to see ANY shorts
instead, I get:
> show me fewer youtube shorts
when I want to say:
> NO
I'm only allowed to say:
> mAyBe LaTeR
Do the people behind these design decisions not realise they're monsters by gagging their users into only being able to express notions that appease them?
This is the point. Youtube mobile has even started opening straight into shorts on occassion rather than opening to the home screen. Intentionally dragging users into shorts ups engagement and watch time. Letting users opt out or avoid shorts is exactly counter to their goals and metrics.
From what I can tell, if you close the app while a short is playing, you’ll be dumped back into shorts when opening the app again. I’ve made it a point to always go back to the home tab before closing the app, which seems to avoid the issue.
I assume their goal is to make YouTube feel like TikTok, for those who want that.
Personally, I think there should be a setting so I can pick which page the app opens up to. I’d like it to open up to my Watch Later list, or subscriptions.
Agreed. Unfortunately control over the home page is a long fought battle over a decade long with youtube increasingly dis-incentivising subscriptions and long term viewership.
This seems like it would be a nice perk for Premium subscribers. Since I pay a flat rate and don't see adds, I would imagine my increased watch time only increases YouTube's cost, while not bringing in any additional revenue. I also read that Premium customers are more profitable than free-tier ad watchers. If this is all true, I would think the priority would be keeping Premium users happy, and providing more incentives to join Premium. Allowing Premium users to configure their home screen seems like an easy win. In keeps existing Premium users happy, gives another compelling reason to sign up, and doesn't really cost them anything... it might even save them money.
Am I missing something about the Premium business model?
I'd actually support that as well. But I suppose if you allow users to decrease watch time it'll lower the value-prop of premium and risk increased cancellations.
This is why I am more critical of Google vs Facebook. If I go to instagram, I know I am wasting my time. YouTube has the only video on how to replace the fuse on my toaster and will try to get me addicted to shorts in the process. It like pushing drugs on you in the grocery store without a way to say no.
And YouTube doesn't really provide the option of showing less shorts. Try it. See if it really shows you less shorts there months later. Spoiler: it won't.
"Yo, the customer be a virtual crack addict, the customer be fucked up and take whatever we be slinging. Yellow top, blue top, shit be weak, shit be strong, they be coming back.." free after the Wire.
I have liked Kagi’s approach. If I add a question mark to the end of my search string it will show the AI results… or there is a button to display them. I almost always do this, because I find it helpful, but I like that I am opting into it as needed, rather than it feeling forced on me.
I'm more baffled by how you're baffled. The incentive chain is very simple: employee needs to have metrics demonstrating lots of users, so they can get promoted, so they make it hard to opt out. Boom, lots of users in the metrics, promoted
I would never be a slave to metrics like this, certainly never on my own dime. A long term refrain of mine is that businesses tend to over-optimise what they can measure and under-optimise what they cant. This is just orgs outsourcing their thinking into a black box so they don't have to consider the ethical ramifications of chasing "number goes up" like a government A/B testing themsleves into "kill all the poor" as a strategy to cut welfare.
For a while last year and into this, NextDoor would allow you to reset your "presentation preferences", with the proviso that they would reset them back to their default every month or thereabouts. WTFF!?!?
It doesn't matter whether they realize it. Even if they do, they just don't care. Most corporate leaders have high degrees of psychopathy. They are exclusively focused on their profits and nothing else. If gagging their users makes them more money than not gagging their users, they will gag their users and they will spare zero thought on how the users might feel about being gagged.
personally I'm a little concerned about meeting alien life. If the universe is incredibly diverse with many different types of lifeform then how might an arbitrary one of those view us?
We proliferate incredibly quickly, we have limited care for our environments, but most importantly our primary means of sustinance is to consume other forms of life. To the point that we consider it an art form, we spend vast amounts of energy perfecting, discussing or advertising the means of cooking and eating the flesh of other life forms. To us its normal but surely to an alien who gains sustinance by some other means; we're absolutely terrifying. Akin to a devouring swarm.
> My issue is that if I choose sqlite to store data locally in my browser or my cell phone, why do I suddenly want to store it in the cloud?
I don't think those solutions are necessarily that bad. There was one the other week that offered a means of guaranteed sync to a sqlite file in the cloud. Its nice to have the infra to allow users to hop around devices and have backups. What's weird to me, is trying to magic it into a performant multi-client db which the underlying technology was never designed to be.
Agreed, Sqlite docs specifically state that its not designed for this, or rather that the solution isn't appropriate, that database as a service is appropriate when you want multiple clients writing.
The entire "problem" is a side-effect of using the wrong tool for the job.
its a file on disk, it relies on the file handling of the OS and an OS file system doesn't give you the same guarantees as a fully fledged db. Even if you try to fix this problem you're just going to end up with trade offs which to properly mitigate you'll end up approaching running some sort of service anyway. At some point you have to ask yourself if jumping through all these hoops has saved you more effort than just running a proper service.
You can justify it as a migration strategy between a file and a service but you're just hammering in screws if you try to force Sqlite to be a multi-client database.
> If there are many client programs sending SQL to the same database over a network, then use a client/server database engine instead of SQLite[1].
I think there's a bit of a difference between preventing a run on the banks and propping up the entire stock market for the sake of just a handful of companies that all have big enough pockets to fail.
Bear in mind that your index becomes more and more of those six or seven companies, the more they grow. I think they're over 30% of the market? So an index tracker is still greatly exposed to this.
> The index aims to provide a comprehensive and balanced representation of the U.S. equity market by including the largest 500 publicly traded equity securities, while specifically excluding the seven largest technology companies commonly referred to as the “Magnificent 7”.
Up 12% in the last year. Unfortunately, it's ten times as expensive (0.35%) as a straight S&P 500 ETF (e.g. VOO, 0.03%).
not the person you were talking to but I think for well over 50% of young men, dating apps are simply an exercise in further reducing one's self worth.
reply