The business trajectory will be like Uber. A few big companies (Google, OpenAI) will price their AI services at a loss until consumers find it to be indispensable and competitors run out of money, then they'll steadily ramp up the pricing to the point where they're gouging consumers (and raking in profits) but still a bit cheaper or better than alternatives (humans in this case).
You should filter out authors from the input books in the output. If liked a book by an author, surely I'd read more of their work if I wanted to — recommending them isn't helpful. Along the same lines, I think interesting recommendations tend to be the ones that (1) I like and (2) I didn't expect. The more similar the recommendations are to the input, the more likely I already know them, and the more likely to create a recommendation echo chamber.
> You should filter out authors from the input books in the output.
No, or at least make it configurable.
I’d agree for series, but not for Authors, just because I once read a book by someone doesn’t mean I even know they have other stuff, the list of Authors I read and enjoyed is very long.
Configurability is fine, but it's too obvious a recommendation and just creates noise. The purpose of a recommendation system is to help you find things that aren't obvious. I'd still filter them out by default even if it's configurable.
If you liked one book by an author, it is not at all likely that you will like the other books as well. For example, Neil Stephenson is probably my favorite author alive today, but I hate almost half of his books.
The only author that I can think of where I read and liked every single book was Terry Pratchett, and that might have be a case of "I was still young and easy to impress".
I didn't say it was likely that you'd enjoy the other books by that author. My point is that it's not helpful for a recommendation system to recommend more books by that author — it's common sense. If I've read a book by an author, it's easy enough to look up their other work and decide whether I want to read more of them.
Agree entirely - more excluding series than authors but both should be options.
I also i need a way to describe its recommendations as "meh". For example, if I put Gone Girl in, I get Girl on a Train. Which, personally, I thought was bad. I want to exclude that from all future rec sets, and ideally align my preferences to the intersection of liked A and disliked B. vOv
No air traffic until their are drone deliveries. What will the sky look like when you take every _individual_ package from Door Dash, Uber Eats, Postmates, Instacart, Amazon, UPS, Fedex, DHL, etc etc etc and put them on _individual_ drones? Even if the logistics could be sorted out, I worry about the quality of life issues it poses for communities, especially with the amount of noise drones make.
NYC handles 3,000 flights a day; it handles 2,300,000 package deliveries a day.
> There's a divide between people who enjoy the physical experience of the work and people who enjoy the mental experience of the work
Eh, physical and mental isn't the divide — it's more like people who enjoy code itself as a craft and people who simply see it as a means to an end (the application). Much like a writer might labor over their prose (the code) while telling a story (the application). Writing code is far more than the physical act of typing to those people.
Isn't that basically the same premise as Chrome, which already dominates the market? Google even made something called ChromeOS. Arc wasn't really more than a distracting skin on Chromium with a few innovative bits of UI...
Exactly, they basically have better designer. For the real tech feature, I really don't think they ever brings any new invention to the product. Data sync, AI, etc. All other competitors have these features. They even need to count on chromium update.
Did they drop data sync? Could have sworn all of my spaces, tabs, folders, favorites and etc synced anytime I logged back in on my other machine (with access to spaces on iOS well)
It’s been a while since I used it regularly though.
My mom was looking up church times in the Philippines. Google AI was wrong pretty much every time.
Why is an LLM unable to read a table of church times across a sampling of ~5 Filipino churches?
Google LLM (Gemini??) was clearly finding the correct page. I just grabbed my mom's phone after another bad mass time and clicked on the hyperlink. The LLM was seemingly unable to parse the table at all.
Because google search and llm teams are different, with different incentives. Search is the cash cow they keep squeezing for more cash at the expense of good quality since at least 2018, as revealed in court documents showing they did that on purpose to keep people searching more to have more ads and more revenue. Google AI embedded in search has the same goals, keep you clicking on ads… my guess would be Gemini doesn’t have any of the bad part of enshitification yet… but it will come. If you think hallucinations are bad now, just you wait until tech companies start tuning them up on purpose to get you to make more prompts so they can inject more ads!
Not that Google needs any more cash, but ReVanced has to be the absolute worst defense for maintaining openness on Android. As in, you could have cited the thousands of legitimate apps that have nothing to do with circumventing a pretty reasonable subscription (compared to other media subscriptions out there) for Google's own app.
This would be fair if Google hadn't altered the deal only after creating the circular "People only upload to YouTube" / "All the viewers are on YouTube"
YouTube would not be effectively the only game in town if Google hadn't underpriced their product to drive out competitors
In short: If Google had played fair from the beginning, I would have the option to watch streaming semi-pro video elsewhere.
I disagree that it's a bad defense. It demonstrates well how reduced openness will allow Google to abuse its monopoly even more. It shouldn't be any business of the maker of my phone to support the business model of the most popular video sharing website.
Manual transmissions have no practical benefit aside from arguably being easier to repair. A better car analogy is pickup trucks (and cars in generally really) — they've gotten huge over the years, compact pickups have disappeared, and you hear the same arguments about it being a niche audience. The reality is that as soon as something sells well (big trucks in this case), these big corporations go all in on it and alienate large segments. Now 25 year old compact Tacomas are selling for as much as their MSRP and manufacturers (Toyota, Ford, Hyundai) are all scrambling to ship a compact. It's the same with small phones — the industry over-rotated on big phones and as soon as someone ships a good small phone, it'll be a hit and small phones will come back. iPhone Mini was a crippled device compared to the Pro line and it still sold millions. Google and Samsung haven't even tried to make something compact, let alone compact and good.
> Manual transmissions have no practical benefit aside from arguably being easier to repair
I'm not much of a car person but I thought stick shift also had the benefits of:
1. engine braking
2. being able to jump start a car with a dead battery by pushing it down a hill while turning the ignition and shifting into 2nd gear (which my sister successfully did after school one day).
Counterpoint: I worked there for years and the demand for more people wasn't natural. It came from (1) typical employees not getting much done because they were either not very motivated, not very competent, or stuck in meetings all day, (2) proliferation of people managers who weren't producing anything — product teams of 200 with 50 of them being managers, (3) managers playing the headcount game because it was a path to promotion — all things being equal, who's getting promoted: an L6 manager with 3 reports or an L6 manager with 12 reports? Constant headcount battles
This sort of corporate rot even infected smaller companies. Teams where we have a 1:1 PM to Engineer ratio, 3 person dev teams with a dedicated "engineering manager" that invents useless meetings to justify their position, individuals claiming they have no time for hands-on work due to all the meetings...
Also: telling a senior SWE (L5) that for good performance reviews they must act as a tech lead and spend most of their time in "alignment" meetings with other TLs and managers. Also: a team of 3 SWEs where each claims to be a tech lead of an area, purely for good performance reviews.
> Also: a team of 3 SWEs where each claims to be a tech lead of an area, purely for good performance reviews.
This kind of forced role inflation is infuriating, and happens at every company I've worked for, big or small. You can't just get by on technical mastery anymore--you always have to be seen as a "leader" of some group or "leading" some project. Even if you just want to stand still in your career and get cost-of-living raises, there is this widely held expectation that you're always cosplaying as a leader of something.
I think "natural" here would refer to genuine project rrquirequirements that will translte directly to value to customers e.g. customers demand x features in y time and we don't have enough manpower to handle it. This is natural, it's business survival.
Contrast with the Unnatural cause of "manager just wants a promotion at any cost" which, in a sense, is akin to Embezzlement. The manager worsens business prospects and contributes to organizational rot for their personal gain.
reply