HobbitFoot

Good. It should be part of OSHA.

I saw this movie. Did it involve bringing kids to outer space and an AI robot that just wanted to help?

That’s fine, but someone has to pay for it.

I never said people weren’t allowed, but there is this weird obsession about it on Lemmy.

Then cancel and move on.

The way that people talk about it here, a streaming service raising rates is the equivalent of a significant other dumping them.

Mega ad tier.

For now. YouTube is already starting to dedicate serious resources to anti ad blocking. I’m sure other streaming services aren’t that far behind.

Yeah. Netflix got really lucky with streaming for as long as they did and they knew it. Cable and broadcast subsidized their content and they were able to lease it for pennies on the dollar.

Of course, people don’t want to admit that the subsidy for their content is gone and they are pissed about rising costs.

Organization trumps money. The problem is that a lot of progressive organizations aren’t able to mobilize voters for elections like this.

Around that time, Watson was the most public demonstration of AI.

Yeeeah, but my issue with that is they generated the expectation that it’d be free by using their investment money to muscle out smaller competitors.

All of YouTube’s competitors were doing the same thing, use ads to subsidize free video hosting. It just happened to be that YouTube was the survivor. If there was competition, it would likely have the same business model that YouTube has. Spotify may be building a YouTube competitor based on the same model.

But it goes back to my earlier assertion that the value of user data is generally to help with advertising.

Anyway you can use data to nudge users. For example, Google can change search result orders. They can promote one company/research/ideology/party to the top and demote others.

This is advertising.

Finding out where certain people are important for law enforcement or press.

This service isn’t that valuable, and extracting the value required is going to be a PR nightmare.

Stores give out free wifi to track your MAC address and see where you go in stores. They sell this data, use it to track theives, or use it for better product placement.

So A-B testing for their advertising?

What good is user data if you don’t use it for advertising?

Yeah, but content creators haven’t deplatformed off YouTube. The closest might be streaming services like Nebula, but even those have subscriptions.

YouTube pays little to content creators for hosting the content, but they also pay for hosting the content. I can’t think of a case where content creators would pay to host their videos for others to watch for free without ads or a subscription.

Maybe, but 2/3 is a majority.

It makes sense. Everyone knows how to program and develop hardware for it and it is free to use. The worst that will happen is that Android development goes in a different direction, and you can fork it if that happens.

You basically had Protestants shrink far more drastically in the USA compared to Catholics and Mormons. With the rise of the religious right, it became easier for Protestants to accept some traditional Catholic beliefs in return for political support.

That said, American Protestantism is a clusterfuck of different churches with wildly different beliefs. The beliefs may be slowly coming together, but there is no firm Conservative Christian Canon yet and cracks are already starting to form with abortion and divorce.

I don’t think it is that.

AIPAC has invested significantly in ensuring Israeli friendly politicians for decades. There will likely be a lot of political blowback in what could end up being only pausing American participation in the genocide should the election go the wrong way.

As someone also measured as gifted and put in gifted classes, there was an interesting discussion that I had with one of the teachers about how the views for approaching gifted education was changing.

For a lot of schools, the “gifted” students are gifts; you don’t have to spend time on their education and they may end up helping the classes they are in. So, it is ok to treat them like normal kids and they won’t become a problem.

However, studies have shown that to be really bad for the “gifted” students. You get a lot of underperforming students who don’t engage with the material as it is mentally underwhelming. Soft skills that they were supposed to learn were never developed because they never had to. You even had issues with developing social skills as the distance in standard deviations between gifted and normal children are the same as between a normal kid and a “special education” kid.

The findings were showing you had to treat the “gifted” students with the same care as those in “special education” as the common teaching techniques don’t work, issues are much more varied between children, and being able to lean on talent in some cases leads to skills not being learned because they never needed to be.

Sounds like you were kept with the normal kids.