Readit NewsFacebook has a process for that. You have a dedicated proof, like death certificate, upload form, and the account is supposed to change into "in memoriam".
Their part of the process is not to give a shit.
> consumers hate metered billing. they'd rather overpay for unlimited than get surprised by a bill.
Yes and no.
Take Amazon. You think your costs are known and WHAMMO surprise bill. Why do you get a surprise bill? Because you cannot say 'Turn shit off at X money per month'. Can't do it. Not an option.
All of these 'Surprise Net 30' offerings are the same. You think you're getting a stable price until GOTAHCA.
Now, metered billing can actually be good, when the user knows exactly where they stand on the metering AND can set maximums so their budget doesn't go over.
Taken realistically, as an AI company, you provide a 'used tokens/total tokens' bar graph, tokens per response, and estimated amount of responses before exceeding.
Again, don't surprise the user. But that's an anathema to companies who want to hide tokens to dollars, the same way gambling companies obfuscate 'corporate bux' to USD.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2aEXsdH9hU3o4SZw5 (winter, March 2012)
that's much simpler than three dimensional coordination.
an "oops" in a car is not immediately life threatening either
This is equivalent to something I called the "QWERTY paradox" more than a decade ago:
Back when the Smartphone market exploded, people disliked typing on a touchscreen and repeatedly stated that they want a device with a physical keyboard.
There was plenty of evidence, surveys, market studies, trend predictions, devices for these "Messaging-centric" use-cases were always part of this market-demand roster.
But whenever someone answered the call and built a Smartphone with QWERTY keyboard, the product failed commercially, simply because also to people claiming they want such a phone, at the point of sale they were less attractive than their slimmer, lighter, all-screen counterparts.
Every major vendor went through this cycle of learning that lesson, usually with an iteration like "it needs to be a premium high-spec device" --> (didn't sell) --> "ah, it should be mass-market" --> (also didn't sell).
You can find this journey for every vendor. Samsung, LG, HTC, Motorola, Sony.
The same lessons were already learnt for small-screen devices: There was a "Mini" series of Samsung Galaxy, LG G-series, HTC One, Sony Xperia. It didn't sell, the numbers showed that it didn't attract additional customers, at best it only fragmented the existing customer-base.
Source: I work in that industry for a long time now
I bought Motorola Droid 4 when it came out. I was so desperate to have a new phone with physical QWERTY, that I bought it blindly, even though it wasn't available in Europe, even though I have never seen it, even though I knew it *didn't support mobile networks* in Europe for a few months, to be fixed by an update. I had to use a coworker who was going on vacation to Florida.
When it arrived, the first thing I saw was that the black screen during boot shines bright blueish, horribly bad contrast. Then when image appeared, I've learned that it has two subpixels per image pixel, for efficiency. This made single color areas show the pixels very visibly.
Then I took a photo. The quality reminded me of a Sony Ericsson Walkman phone I had 6 years back, except the colors were much worse. Everything was blueish. It had a physical (touch) "search" button below the screen, but companies like Google didn't seem to understand why it would be useful to search for anything, so most of their apps didn't react to it. Especially Gmail.
But hey, I could touch-type any long message, and I could use SSH client conveniently (it even had a physical CTRL button).
Other than the keyboard (pretty solid too), it was one of the worst phones I ever had. So yeah, based on that model the market decided that "nobody wants keyboard phones", and the Droid 5 never came out.
Because it's easy to blame the most standing out feature.
Reducing the distance of each statistical leap improves “performance” since you would avoid failure modes that are specific to the largest statistical leaps, but it doesn’t change the underlying mechanism. Reasoning models still “hallucinate” spectacularly even with “shorter” gaps.
If I ask you what's 2+2, there's a single answer I consider much more likely than others.
Sometimes, words are likely because they are grounded in ideas and facts they represent.