Readit NewsTheir monetization plan is to have ad-free subscription options from $20 to $200/month and an API which charges by token.
These ads are for the free and new low-cost ad-subsidized tier that comes in below their existing $20/month plan.
You know what's better than 20 bucks a month? 20 bucks a month and ads.
But forming habits / making lifestyle changes is hard. And when people hear they can just take an injection instead of make lifestyle changes they're like oo, easy!
They don't. People on GLP-1s lose weight the same as you or I, through diet and exercise. It just makes it easier to build those habits.
Which I think reveals the obvious. Diet and exercise ARE NOT root cause solutions. Meaning, the root cause of obesity IS NOT eating too much. Rather, it's a propensity to eat too much. And, in that regard, GLP-1s are a root cause solutions, whereas diet necessarily is not.
Democrats are pushing anti tech agenda without understanding the consequences. And this is not because democrats are stupid, it’s because there’s a large population who feels the same way.
Ergo, they have an anti-fascist position, which currently also means they have an anti-tech position. And yes, I work in tech as a developer.
HN: "oh my god, they're begging to start a war!"
Now, granted, most US politicians are war-mongers. It's just part of our blood. But still, that shouldn't be a surprise.
I would first blame the programmers, the design and lack of specialty offloading before blaming any programming language. Well designed web calls scale nearly linearly with usage and usually poor design or programming is the source of slowness. You can always trade language complexity for speed but assuming it is the cause of all perceived slowness is a poor man's view.
It is the same story every time again, first it was java, which has so many large scale projects most people won't even know it's running things they use, now it's apparently python who is to blame for all slowness on the web. When the next JIT or scripted language comes along which is not someone's favourite pet that will get the blame.
I also denounce the notion that trading language complexity for slowness is the case. Python is already complex, and there's some language and frameworks that are actually quite a bit easier to use for web backends. Like java, or dotnet. It just makes no sense to use python for this usecase, even if you ignore the slowness.
But that's not completely true, there is one very good reason to use python. Your devs know it. But, that doesnt say anything about the language itself.
I think lofty claims ultimately hurt the perception of AI. If I wanted to believe AI was going nowhere, I would listen to people like Sam Altman, who seem to believe in something more akin to a religion than a pragmatic approach. That, to me, does not breed confidence. Surely, if the product is good, it would not require evangelism or outright deceit? For example, claiming this implementation was 'clean room'. Words have meaning.
This feat was very impressive, no doubt. But with each exaggeration, people lose faith. They begin to wonder - what is true, and what is marketing? What is real, and what is a cheap attempt for companies to rake in whatever cold hard AI cash they can? Is this opportunistic, like viral pneumonia, or something we should really be looking at?
For example a company can instruct a truck driver what time he needs to have the goods delivered, then the company is also to blame if he has an accident because the schedule was unfeasible while following safe driving practices.
Or a company which is dumping harmful chemicals into the environment.
A cab driver raping a passenger is unfortunately not an isolated happening, it's not particular to Uber.
If the employer makes choices that leads to an unsafe working condition, then that's their responsibility. If that might, potentially, mean the current business model is not viable, well... yeah, too bad so sad. Nobody has a god given right to run a business however the fuck they want.
But I don't think that's the case here. Uber can take steps to mitigate this, it's not like theyve exhausted their options. Frankly, they haven't even tried.
Yes, everyone
Every ad you see materially makes you a little bit poorer and cuts off a small amount of your life. Think of it this way - every ad is a few seconds lost, maybe a few minutes, and a few cents down the drain.
But this isn't understood because it's so abstracted. The link between your personal shopping habits and advertising is not understood, and, in fact, cannot be understood, because it's fundamentally brain hacking.
If you believe you are immune to ads, you are not. Or, at least, you can never prove it.
Cumulatively, this adds up. If you never saw ads, how much longer would you live? A year, maybe two? If you never saw ads, how much richer would you be? 200%, 500%? Who knows.