For me the correct URL seems to be: https://www.facebook.com/adpreferences/ad_settings/?section=... instead of what you have in the gist. (But the script errs on the awaits.)
Readit NewsSeparately, Firefox has a feature to isolate Facebook activity from other things you do on the web.
I don't know how well it works in practice. The other day I bought something from a local webshop (bike parts) on my laptop. The next day I'm seeing an ad from the same webshop on my Facebook feed on my mobile. Yes, it could be coincidental though I do see a lot of bike-related ads and practically never this company. (Even though I am a returning, if not very frequent customer of theirs.)
atleta commented on Nokia made too many phones textquery.app/2024/02/06/... · Posted by u/shubhamjain
If they had concentrated on Series 60 they could easily have fixed Symbian over time. It was highly capable. For example it ran a full Webkit (yes really) browser before Apple shipped their own. That was genuinely useful. It even had code signing for apps in v3 (the version that shipped with the E61)
The problem was still Symbian under S60, if you like. Yes, it had code signing (which seemed like an unnecessary restriction at the time it was introduced) and a decent browser, and email that synced in the background (unlike in iPhone 1!) and background tasks in general, etc.
But developing for Symbian was convoluted, very painful and slow. And it slowed down Nokia itself not to mention the 3rd party/external app developers. There was no reasonable way to fix Symbian as these issues stemmed from the very foundations. One of them being memory management, the other probably cooperative multitasking and callbacks. But the memory management thing was all over the code (think string handling, so everywhere) and it made using existing software hard too. Linux would have been the way to go, one way or another. Sure, they would have to have rebuilt most things for that platform but e.g. webkit would have been a no-brainer and they could have used a lot of existing open source software.
atleta commented on Nokia made too many phones textquery.app/2024/02/06/... · Posted by u/shubhamjain
I'm not sure that was a problem. Let's not forget that smartphones, as we know them, weren't really invented yet back then. So there wasn't really a common form factor and feature package that every customer was looking for.
Sure, there were Symbian phones that could functionally do almost anything smartphones can do now (and do more than the first iPhone) but those weren't for everyone and those didn't use touch screens so there were multiple form factors. Like the full keyboard communicators (9210, 9300/9500), the Blackberry clone (E61, I think), the slide keyboard (7650?) and then all the non-Symbian phones (S40 OS, IIRC). And, of course cameras were new and shitty so not every phone had them.
Now this could have caused a problem in itself and what the article says about the organization could also cause problems but (I keep saying this when this topic comes up) the real problem was that the Nokia management was too convenient/coward and didn't dare to switch away from Symbian. Especially since they have bought out Erinsson and Sony (again, IIRC), their former partners in the Symbian consortium in ~2004/5.
There were eperiments with a linux based phone OS around that time. They created the Nokia 770 "internet tablet" [1] which was this PDA-like touch screen device with a landscape screen layout, a pen, and a removable front cover. Obviously it was an experiment (and later followed by the 810 then the 900, the latter being a phone). However no one in the management was brave enough to give a linux phone a go. Especially not committing to a strategy to switch over to linux. Symbian phones were selling great, Nokia was the market leader and you can't really do better than that...
I remember, at one point, one team in the Helsinki office of NRC (Nokia Research Center) was coming up with the idea of creating a "unified architecture" (called the "Grand Unified Architecture") where they would create a uniform platform around the 3 operating systems: a linux based one, Symbian S60 and the (non-Symbian) S40. The genius idea was that they'd create a HAL (hardware abstraction layer) then above that would be one of the 3 OSs and above those would be a uniform API that could be used by all app developers. This would have been a great strategy to side-step an actual decision but other than that didn't make any sense, really. (Maybe you could argue back then that the S40 hardware was not capable of running linux, but there was no excuse for trying to keep both Symbian and linux while hiding them below a uniform API.) So the switch to linux never happened and Symbian was a pain in the ass to develop for. Just concatenating two strings took several lines of code in their C++-based API that hasn't even looked like actual C++. And this made developing in-house software slow and made 3rd party software pretty scarce.
Nokia also had an aversion towards touch screens. One of the reasons must have been that back then only resistive touch screens were available (I think the oroginal iPhone was the first phone with a capacitive one, i.e. one that was an actual touch screen and not a press/push screen). The other reason must have been Symbian (and the S60 skin) that was really not designed for touch screen and was hard to develop.
So Nokia just continued to enjoy being the market leader with the management not taking the risk to try to switch direction. And then the iPhone came and then Android came (who, after seeing an iPhone demo, very quickly changed direction because at first they thought they were competing with Blackberry, so their UI was similar to that and maybe Symbian).
atleta commented on Nokia made too many phones textquery.app/2024/02/06/... · Posted by u/shubhamjain
The main issue they had was fragmented Symbian versions. Oh that and they allowed themselves to listen to Stephen Elop.
I admire their hardware innovation and I think it’s sad we lost it.
My Nokia E61 is still one of my favourite past handsets (Sony’s second version of the Xperia Mini Pro, the iPhone X and the stunning Siemens S35 are the others). And now I probably gave away who I am to at least one person who knows me here.
The main issue they had was Symbian. Period. And not willing to let it go. It was f*&^d up before Elop. Years before him.
> This is similar to "China's manufacturing causes a lot of pollution". No, you, the consumer, cause that pollution.
This pretends that China's environmental standards and oversight are identical to every other countries or that worldwide shipping isn't one of the largest contributors to pollution on the planet. Which we all know is far from the truth.
So, no, China actually causes that pollution. The companies in the US who take advantage of China's lax environmental and labor laws to eke out a few points of profit causes that pollution.
As a consumer, I require goods to survive and thrive, and I have very little say in how that market functions, and I have zero say when it comes to setting policy. I'm happy to do more, and do as much as I can when possible, but I'm wealthy enough to play this game... most of America is not.
I wish HN would punch up nearly as much as it loves to punch down.
GP talked about who causes the pollution not where to punch (who to blame). Everybody has a little say in policies, at least in democracies. When you say that most of America is not wealthy enough to play this game then you basically admit this. And this is what is happening: people are not keen on making policies happen if those mean lowering their standard of living. But the thing is that, unfortunately, it is that very standard of living (i.e. consumption) that causes the problem.
You can punch up as much as you want, things are not going to change without people lowering their standards. And once we accept it we can easily force politicians to do the right thing. The tragedy of the situation is that everyobody is complicit and most people will not accept that they themselves are. Sure, everybody but them .
And I'm not saying this to blame anyone. Blaming doesn't make sense. Identifying the causes and what needs to change does.
The flaw in your assumption is that perfect tech or tech powerhouses win. I mean, sure when they do, they win big; but the endgame for b2b SaaS is mostly M&A, powered by sales, which is mostly down to c-suite relationships and perception of being one among the market leaders ("nobody ever got fired for buying IBM").
If you can move fast, deliver, expand, and raise money, there's a good chance the AI wrapper lands a nice exit and/or morphs into a tech behemoth. Those outcomes (among others), even if mutually exclusive, are equally possible.
So, if I understand you correctly, the business strategy for an AI wrapper company would be that they acquire customers quickly from a specific niche, build a name, while having very little custom technology and then get acquired by some of the larger players who do have the actual AI tech in-house. And, for them, it would be worth it for the brand/market/existing client base.
Assuming that the advance made in the meanwhile in AI doesn't eradicate the whole thing. I mean say some company builds a personal assistant for managers to supplant secretaries, they become the go-to name and then Google buys them in 2-3-5 years. Unless Google's AI becomes so good in the meantime that you can just instruct it in 1-2 sentences to do this for you.
I agree, in fact I would wager the opposite, that most who claim to be a tech company are simply using OpenAI or another vendor with a turnkey API for things launched recently. Over time I expect more use of fine-tuned models, but fine-tuning is not easy, especially if your goal is GPT parity (or better).
The thing I don't understand about this strategy is that it itself shows that there really is no money to be made here. I mean it's a pretty obvious giveaway that:
1. they don't have the resources to build their own technology and probably never will
2. even if they did have, the best they could do is come up with something very similar to OpenAI's GPT, i.e. a (somewhat) generic AI model. This means that OpenAI can also easily compete with them.
All these companies are doing (if anything) is that they test the market for OpenAI (or Google, MS) for free.
Ethics and restrictive terms aside, it doesn't seem like GPT 4 was necessary for what the poster did. How much worse or more difficult would it have been to use Mixtral or 3.5 to generate the first 100 good prompt-response pairs and then manually tweak them as the poster did?
Well, it seems that initially started with GPT4 but his costs were becoming high so he had to do something and had to do it quickly. Technically he could have written a few hundred responses himself while the site was still using GPT4 using the prompts from the users but that could have been slow (expensive)/boring, etc.
I made the mistake of having the same email address for Facebook as for registering to random online shops...