Short term - higher stock evaluation.
Long term - depends on what value AI bubble will be able to deliver. But it's not like Amazon is sitting out of this game, they do invest into their AI (Nova models), with little return to show for it.
All analysis there is based on percent of jobs posted.
It says nothing how absolute number of jobs postings has been changing during the time.
Not to mention that number of job posting is the function of employees retention in addition to head count changes, and employees retention will be likely different from region to region.
Same terrible experience for me while I was on FB.
I was spending a lot of time there and I do shop a lot online. They couldn’t come with relevant ad targeting for me.
For my wife they started to show relevant ads AFTER she went to settings and manually selected areas she is interested in.
This is not an advanced technology everyone claim FB has.
I recommend giving openrouter a try to quickly test multiple LLMs. In my experience claude sonnet 3.5 is slightly worse in super strict rule adherence but way better at wordplays than 4o so might be better for lyrics. I'm suspecting a secret sauce in their secret tokenizer. Don't know yet about deepseek-chat, which I'm migrating all my apps too.
I wonder if this is also a indication how much people actually value their WP (and by extension other major newspapers) subscription? And how much paying for subscription is kind of charity for them (support of independent journalism, etc.)?
So you think they pay for a subscription to get independent journalism, but cancel that subscription if the independent newspaper does not endorse their candidate? That's funny, don't you think?
The point isn't that they didn't endorse a particular candidate, it's that this decision was made in a way that was completely antithetical to independent journalism.
How is not endorsing a candidate “antithetical to independent journalism”? I understand that Bezos stepped in to perhaps overrule an endorsement but in what sense is maintaining neutrality antithetical to independent journalism?
I didn't say not endorsing a candidate is antithetical to independent journalism. I said the way this decision was made was completely antithetical to independent journalism, i.e. the decision not to endorse was not made by journalists independently. Rather the opposite - the journalists' decision was overruled.
How is endorsing a candidate journalism? Sure journalists will have opinions on candidates, but that's not journalism. From what I've read this is from the opinion section of the paper, so it's not journalism in the classic sense anyway.
Independent journalism isn't "whatever journalists want". It means unbiased. Endorsing candidates is by definition biased. They were corrected in their ways because the editorial board became too biased.
they changed the policy of endorsing a candidate by fiat from above at the last minute before one of the most important elections in American history... do we really need to spell out for you how this isn't about endorsement but about how the decision played out?
That reputation is more or less fabricated in order to shield the right from genuine critic. WP is not very left-leaning, I would consider them center. It's just that in the past 8 or so years the right has gotten much more radical, so it doesn't always seem that way.
My take is that WaPo has been exceptionally gentle with Trump, not at all holding him to the same standards they held Biden and Harris. From headline framing, to article vocabulary, to count of articles, fact checking, to associated photos, they've treated Trump quite hospitably.
They cancel their subscription when the newspaper makes it clear they are no longer independent.
The Post won a Pulitzer for their coverage of Jan 6. The fact they were prevented from endorsing a candidate means Bezos didn’t want them to endorse Harris.
The 1619 Project won a Pulitzer, even though the book was full of factual errors on the border of lies and the hatred in the book is batshit crazy. So, I'm not sure how Pulitzer still means anything.
Anything can be funny without effort of thinking. It is funny for you, because you are skipping really short context: endorsement was already written. Owner of the newspaper dictating what can't be published means that it is not independent work is it?
Notably they can still endorse other candidates, and the specific candidate they were barred from to (not) endorsing has immense influence on the businesses run by the owner, and the owner was directly meeting with him. It seems like an obvious quid pro quo from Bezos to Trump, hence the outcry.
The key detail here is that the endorsement was quashed by the billionaire owner of the paper and not the editorial board. That undermines any sense of independence that people might have felt they were paying for.
The editor wanted the endorsement and got spiked by the billionaire owner after said owner's closed-door meeting with the other candidate. That's supposed to be journalistic independence?
Jeff Bezos intervened directly in what was promised to be an independent editorial process. That quite directly breaks the trust in both editorials and d news.
For me, it explained WaPo's very careful treatment of Trump's age, versus the aggressive treatment of Biden's age. So I cancelled. I can't trust editorial choice or news editing and framing from a media source where The Owner just busts in and changes things.
nobody wants independent journalism. never wanted. people want something that aligns with their point of view.
that's why streamers, podcasters and subgroups are so successful - you find like-minded folks there that agree with you. And that's why you often have forums and discord groups that literally ban people left and right.
> nobody wants independent journalism. never wanted
This is too cynical. I know I do. I don't even mind biased analysis or perspective as I believe everyone has their perspectives grounded on certain assumptions or "biases". But it does pains me to see that journalists would rather invent hoaxes than reporting facts. It also pains me to see that all medias simultaneously use the same peculiar phases like "testy interview" or "sharp as tack", which does seem imply outside influence to the journalists.
In USSR similar adage was: “No matter how much you steal from the State, you can’t get even.” (Сколько у государства не воруй — все равно своего не вернёшь.)
No, there is a in-world reason at least for no drones. Wikipedia:
> However, a great reaction against computers has resulted in a ban on any "thinking machine", with the creation or possession of such punishable by immediate death.
tl;dr - Machine intelligences existed in Dune history, were discovered to be secretly controlling humanity (through abortion under false pretenses, forced sterilization, emotional/social control, and other ways), then were purged and replaced with a religious commandment: "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind"
No, and there is a (piloted) drone attack in the first book -- Paul is attacked by a hunter-seeker.
The reason nobody tries to use the lasgun-shield interaction as a weapon is because the resulting explosion is indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon, and the Great Convention prohibits the use of nukes on human targets.
Just the perception of having used a nuclear device would result in the House which did so becoming public enemy #1 and being eradicated by the Landsraad and Sardaukar combined.
@Potro: If you liked the movie, read the books. I don't read a lot anymore, but during sick leave I started with the first book. Didn't stop until I finished the main story, including the sequels by Frank Herbert's son about a month later. That's like... uh... nine books?
In the book Paul is attacked by an insect drone while in his room. The drone was controlled by a Harkonnen agent placed weeks in anticipation inside a structure of the palace so it was also a suicide attack as the agent had no chance to escape and would die of hunger/thirsty if not found.
It’s quite amazing to find a post with close to zero substance (not my intention to offend its creator who submitted it) from some blog on some hosting platform with total of 2 entries (the other one is extended “Hello, Word”) to get meaningful time on top of the site, and generate some extended discussion.
How it works?
The irony is, I think I could get more delivered with a $670k cheque than I could with a $6.7 million one. With the latter, you would grow too big, management would creep in, you would overengineer, you might spend too much time working behind closed doors etc.
Later on you would need cash to scale this business, but for early stage product development I think $500k to $1 million is the sweet spot.
Also since Kagi is a paid product, I imagine that the amount of external funding needed is inherently less than a startup that is built on the "scale first, monetise later" model.
I imagine that their hosting costs must be quite big and not very elastic. Crawling takes compute and bandwidth, storage cost will be high, as you need to store data in low latency storage, then indexing which is more compute costs.
They may have access to talent pool willing to work for their vision at significantly reduced rates, but unless they effectively sell themself to big cloud provider, they can’t significantly reduce the infrastructure cost.
