Some of these are acquires so it's hard to argue the money was 'burned'. That said I do agree acquired companies can be viable as the product usually gets put on life-support or ruined/shutdown (like Club Penguin)
Even the products got eventually shut down I still don't think the money was necessarily 'burned.' Most buildings eventually fell or got destructed so were all the resources spent on construction burned? But whether a product actually helped the users is a question too nuance to ask.
This is why if we can get them down to ~$50 I think they are clearly +ROI just on the individual level.
I snack, drink less, and feel like eating out significantly less. Or when I do those things, I eat the take-out meal over multiple-meals. 1-2 less takeaway meals and a svelter grocery bill due to the less booze or snacks probably is at least $50 if not more.
Your comment completely doesn't understand how hard it can be to be on a sustained diet.
The funny thing is that ever since starting to take GLP-1, I've kind of gain empathy to the "just stop eating so much" crowd. When you are on GLP-1, you lose a lot of the feeling towards food, so it's easier to understand how a person who has never had the same level of urges and difficulty would feel.
FWIW, there is no research on "natural" diet that shows sustained long term meaningful weight loss. And even the most controlled and extreme short term diets of people in controlled living spaces with prepared food shows 17% weight reduction at the state of the art. While GLP-1 medication reach 20%+ on average without any lifestyle change. It's just not comparable.
I have done experiments like water fasting for 2+ weeks while ruck sacking up one of the steepest hills in Los Angeles every morning. I have done multi-day solo hikes in pretty miserable weather. I consider my self control pretty strong, but unless I am extremely vigilant and accept a very poor quality of life (i.e. strictly the same meals day after day), I slowly gain weight.
Self control is only effective for some people, so for others, meds can be the best option. We have plenty of natural selection that makes us crave calorific foods and often that craving will override our decision making. (Disclaimer - I'm not on weight management drugs nor intend to be)
Something feels extremely dystopian about this statement and I have no issue putting my finger on it. Stop judging others for how they want to live their life
I'd like this for political opinions and published to a blockchain overtime so we can see when there are sudden shifts. For example, I imagine Trump's people will screen federally used AI and so if Google or OpenAI wants those juicy government contracts, they're going to have to start singing the "right" tune on the 2020 election.
You can do this now without an MCP, by auth'ing the `sprite` command inside of a Sprite and telling Claude to go document it for you. You can do things like "make me three versions of this feature on three different Sprites so I can compare them". It is spooky how easy it is to teach agents this stuff.
This is worse than the DMCA because there's no provision for companies that develop or host the tech.
Why the hell can't these legislators keep to punishing the law breakers instead of creating unending legal pitfalls for innovation?
We have laws against murdering people with kitchen knives. Not laws against dinnerware. Williams Sonoma doesn't have to worry about lawsuits for its Guy Degrenne Beau Manoir 20-Piece Flatware Set.
lol says you, its been my experience that reason.com does NOT post made-up stories, they simply have priorities aligned with their political biases which is relatively normal nowadays. AI agrees.
google:
"Reason.com is a reputable source that adheres to journalistic standards, but its content is filtered through a specific, consistent libertarian lens."
can you post the neonazi part? I couldn't find it. if you're uncomfortable posting actual nazi text, post the wordcount that precedes it in the article and I can count the words that precede your neonazi discovery.
Yet again the Trump admin identifies an issue but misses the nuance. We want investors to encourage more homebuilding, the problem is more regional concentration - in regions where PE owns a big enough % of the homes that they can monopolize and control the rents. Or NIMBY policies (where the federal government could dock funding to states that don't build to match population growth).
"In over 24,000 participants from the NHANES study, high saturated fatty acid intake was associated with an 8% increase in all cause mortality risk. A meta-analysis with over 1,100,000 total participants showed that high intake of saturated fats was also correlated to a 10% increase in coronary heart disease mortality risk"
(https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.31403...)
(there is an argument for why this shouldn't apply to grass-fed meat but that is an extremely small minority of meat sold)
that is an impossible standard to apply to diet-based research which is incredibly expensive to otherwise study (e.g, you need a metabolic ward and at that point you'd complain about small N).
We know saturated fat increases LDL, we know LDL contributes to CVD. This is still an area of active research and there are small populations of people that don't accept the consensus but it is still very much best-practice keep your LDL low.
This isn't really a correct narrative. Diets high in saturated fat are correlated with CVD. Sugar is also correlated with poor metabolic health which is also correlated with CVD. Both are bad.
Best data is still Mediterranean- nuts, fruits vegetables, olive or avocado oil, and lean protein.
The so-called "Mediterranean diet" is a myth, and one of many myths that even serious "nutrition scientists" believe and perpetuate. Actual people in the Mediterranean have way different diets, and ones that include significant quantities of things like pork, lamb, fatty fish, very sugary confections, processed meats like sausages or jamon, etc.
I would be willing to bet that things like the siesta, large amounts of sunlight exposure, a more laid back culture, and lots of vacation days are much more important parts of what keeps people living around the Mediterranean healthier - much more so than the actual diet.
Mediterranean diet is basically a lie, though. If you look at the healthiest Mediterranean populations, they eat a lot of saturated fat.
Diets high in saturated fat are correlated with high standard of living. High standard of living is correlated with high consumption of processed foods. So... yeah.
I've been to the Mediterranean several times. They eat a ton of (delicious) super oily food, sausages, meats, eggs, fish (often fried or deep fried), salty cheeses, greasy stuff, tons of white bread, lots of wine. Fat chance to find someone eating avocados, kale, or quinoa, and proteins are not at all minimized.
The Mediterranean diet is like a Californian wellness type of person's idea of what the actual Mediterranean diet is.
Countries in the mediterranean have been developing the same bad habits as elsewhere. People in the Mediterranean need to go back to eating a Mediterranean diet.
Sergey is brilliant but it's really the lightsaber that is super voting shares that make him uniquely empowered to slash through Google's immense bureaucracy.
I think being the founder of Google gives him more political capital at Google than anything on paper. As a controlling member of the board there's a variety of things he can do with that hammer, but just simply being who he is, not even just on the org chart, has got to be worth way more.
this seems an idealistic view, my cynical view is that if King Lear gives up all his legal paper power he will find out nobody cares who the hell he is and take advantage of him without remorse.
In my experience (at a much smaller scale than these guys, of course) the legal papers power is more of a formality. It’s the soft power tied up in knowledge, relationships, trust and goodwill that really count.
Brin wasn’t bothered to wield any of that power to try to arrest the decline in Google’s search quality. He wasn’t bothered to direct the Chrome team to support MathML, or to bring back Google Reader, or do anything about a hundred small insults like, say, the deletion of YouTube comments with URLs to keep the rubes inside the casino. But he was able and willing to come back and wield his clout because he was bored and wanted to play with AI. As someone who’s old enough to remember how much leeway Google used to get from governments and the public at large on the basis that Page and Brin were nice young men who could be relied on to be responsible stewards it’s a little galling. Don’t give Mr. Brin any belly-rubs until he tells us when Reader is coming back.
Right, though it's also reasonably clear that part of the story there is that he finds a high-stakes AI race personally interesting and exciting on a technical and a business level. Conversely it's also fairly clear that he finds doing anything about the steady encrudification of Google to be a big snooze. (Even though it may also be a long-term, though less dramatic, problem for the company's future health, exactly the sort of long-term issue which Google's dual-stock structure was supposed to empower Page and Brin to care about and act on.) But in any case, whatever his mix of motivations are, he's able to act within Google on things he cares about. He is also perfectly able to act on a number of the issues at Google which have significantly bad effects on its users and on the population of Earth at large. (Not all of them, to be sure: there are clearly some problems which would be very hard to fix, alongside a number of no-brainers.) He evidently just isn't willing, because he doesn't care about them.
Enshittification of existing money making activities of Google independently of AI is also an existential threat. Parts of the threat are codependent on AI, but there is little reason to open the door wider as they have.
I loved google reader, many people were blogging and social network was "ick" as people immediately associated the term with okcupid/friendster(myspace?) and reader was decentralised and encouraged all walks of life to participate... maybe I just missed the vibes back then, gosh I was so hopeful
The videos too. Geopolitical commentators cannot show e.g. an explosion in Ukraine caused by a drone, and they say "T" instead of "terrorist", and "kaboomed" instead of "killed", etc. Doing so may see the vid demonetized or even taken down.
OTOH deep fake gepolitical commentators are all over the place, and it is allowed (sometimes Youtube shows a label, sometimes the channel itself describes itself as a "fan channel" of the commentator, and not the real deal. Sometimes e.g. for Shorts you can see in the info whether things are AI generated).
I do think about this in the context of other tech companies, the "bidirectionality of enforcement", or whatever you want to call it
Let's say you have Facebook, which is notorious for banning people yet never seems to ban the things people report that should be banned. That's a real life example, but take any hypothetical company
If someone posts x bad thing and doesn't get banned, do we immediately take our torches and storm the premeses to protest? Maybe, maybe not; "look, scale is hard" (and sometimes calls to remove things outright get politicized, as seen in the last few years, so sometimes it's a tricky line)
That would be... not fine, but more fine than it is now. The lack of fairness in the bidirectionality ensures that you, Joe Schmoe, get a month ban for calling someone a jerk while the most egregious hate or racism or... anything... gets a quick check followed by This Does Not Violate Our Community Guidelines
(And of course because these services are monopolies, well, too bad, you just have to suffer. Hope you don't need the information from that Facebook page, because Facebook will tend to make it borderline impossible to view something public without an account)
I think companies like Google dont even try like they are "Too Big to be Regulated".
Facebook is much worse because everyghing on there is user gemerated. Any small company would be just crushed by governments if they would have similar issues.
I think they are similar to FedEx. FedEx knows that millions of packages per day are transporting illegal goods, any bad enough accident shows it. However, FedEx would absolutely go bankrupt if they tried to open every package and make sure the contents were good. At the end of the day, that's the government's job.
If the DEA and ATF wants to staff every shipping hub with people checking every package, that's fine by them (though admittedly it would hurt revenues).
For Google and Facebook and all the other user-content sites, it's just impossible to actually, fully uphold the law themselves, so their best bet is just to try to make it a pleasant experience for the users and leave upholding the law to the upholders of the law.
reply