|
Arglebargle III posted:I can see why someone can say "It was the right call, the outcome just didn't work out the way we hoped," because you run across that situation all the time in life. You can play your hand perfectly and still lose. I would disagree. GoPro owned the action camera market. When consumer/prosumer quads began to appear, even the DJI models were using GoPro cameras. After a time, DJI switched to their own gimballed camera system, which they now sell as a turnkey system as well, and used the knowledge from that to become a real player in the video stabilization market. Meanwhile, quads have been maturing, and are now a staple among content creators in the action sport/lifestyle fields, with DJI essentially running the show. At the top-end of the market, GoPro faces competition from Blackmagic as a provider of high quality, small form factor cameras for professional productions. For GoPro, not making a play would have meant ceding what is currently the only significant growth opportunity in the market they are in.
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Seems like a content producer would have to be very tiny not to be hitting those figures, and if someone is that tiny, I can't see Youtube ad revenue being a significant income source for that person anyway. Let's say that your videos average 3 minutes, which is probably pretty short for content creators. In that scenario, 4000 hours of view time is equivalent to 80,000 views total across all videos you have on your channel. Assuming you're making around $8 per thousand views (which seems to be the high end these days) that's a maximum of $640 per year. So really, this is only affecting folks who are drawing a few hundred bucks out of Youtube each year, which makes all of the "well now it's not worth my time" responses kind of strange.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Harik posted:I think the issue is nobody believes that. It's pretty weasel-worded too: It doesn't matter whether people believe it, it's the truth. Youtube doesn't prioritize videos in search based on the monetization status. Monetization status is just a side-effect of having a channel that ranks highly due to the factors that actually matter, such as low abandon rates, channel authority, embeds, engagement, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:This report on KodakCOIN pulls no punches quote:“When the mania goes, this will go with it, and what will be left will be a dry husk of a software application that will never do what it was marketed to do.” blockchain.txt
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
baquerd posted:You're over-generalizing, but there are a poo poo ton of students that failed/are failing at life because they didn't understand that paying an extra $20k a year for their ideal private school would in no way translate into increased earnings. I'm curious how someone can look at the data that shows record numbers of students saddling themselves with crippling debt, and somehow come away with the belief that this is a personal failure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Do these students not have access to the internet? If they do, why don't they have the ability to determine what jobs are typically available for which majors, at what salaries, etc.? It's not just that we aren't educating students to think about finances, it's that the life of a teenager exists on an entirely different plane than the one they will be on as an adult. Their entire worldview is biased by the structures put in place by society. Most teenagers aren't on close personal terms with adults in their 20s or 30s, who are the ones in the situation that will be most similar to their own after graduation. Even if they do know a few of these folks, they write it off because they have been conditioned to expect some difficulty finding their first job. The adults they probably know well are their teachers, who are obviously employed, as well as parents and family friends who have likely turned their college education, regardless of what it was in, into a career by that point. Their primary sources of adult information (the aforementioned parents, teachers, and family friends) are telling them they can major in whatever they find interesting, possibly with a slight negative attitude towards English or theatre or whatever, and possibly with a positive attitude towards STEM fields, because that's still widely considered the path to a comfortable and consistent salary. The colleges, meanwhile, are trying to sell them on drat-near everything except academics, and literally no one is telling them to be wary of that bullshit. Even their parents are taking everything said during the college visits at face value. So, if this is your day to day existence as a teenager, what exactly is supposed to clue you in to the fact that it's all bullshit? Society is actively lying to each and every one of them, and you think it's the 16-year-old kid's fault for not putting together a spreadsheet to try and min/max adulthood?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
baquerd posted:I'm very interested in seeing how the next generation handles this. I skipped school a ton to dick with compuserve and bbs's which were primarily composed of older adults who told it like they wanted to without the filter of school. The next generation has grown up with the internet, but will they take to the available information? Teaching teens how to learn and figure things out for themselves is the biggest gap in learning out there in my mind. You keep pretending that society-level issues aren't the problem, and that it's the kids' fault for not questioning the entire worldview they're presented with. Like, the whole system is essentially telling children "this is how the world works," and then having those children make adult decisions with long-lasting consequences based on that information. Saying "well, if those kids had read dead comedy forums instead of slacking off, they'd be set for life like me" doesn't really get to the heart of the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/pummeled-by-scandal-uber-hit-with-4-46b-in-losses-during-2017/ Iff you're an investor who believes in their goal of autonomous taxis, why would you put your money in Uber? It's not like Uber has a negative balance sheet because they're reinvesting their profits in robocars, their business model just flat out isn't sustainable. So, if your goal is to be at the forefront of the autonomous taxi revolution, why not just put 1 billion into a company that only develops autonomous cars? Cause right now, the majority of your investment is getting pissed away on building an unsustainable ride-sharing empire.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
anonumos posted:What the gently caress? There's like 6 things wrong with this post. That's too much brainwashed lolbertarian brain-dump poo poo to unpack. Just loving leave. The Facebook post you saw may have been using (intentionally or otherwise) the SLS' development cost, which has been about 12 billion since 2011. Decius posted:SLS can carry twice as much (and 20t added to that later on) and is able to do manned launches. This makes things far, far more expensive, since human lives are at stake. The SLS isn't able to do any of that, because it doesn't exist yet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Decius posted:You sure are the belle of the ball at the Yearly Pedant Celebration. You can call up SpaceX and buy a FH launch for $90m right now. It's kinda important to draw a distinction between real world performance and what someone says in a powerpoint, otherwise you get r/spacex where folks drone on about how SpaceX's next reusable rocket will be able to lift 20t more than the SLS all for $7m per launch.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:I loathe LinkedIn. A guillotine to whoever thought to make job hunting a social media platform. It's such a strange example of not recognizing your role. The core function of LinkedIn is awesome. It's a public repository for resumes and a place for you to compile a rolodex on every professional connection you have ever made. Whoever decided it also needed to be Business Facebook and an unending source of junk mail needs to be taken out behind the building and shot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it is if you're trying to piggyback your self driving car test with a corporate partner to drum up publicity, yeah From a risk management standpoint, a 2,000lb vehicle whose failure mode is stopping is better than a 75lb vehicle whose failure mode is falling out of the sky. Yeah, it's a stunt, and there are probably some clear rules about what conditions it can be used in, but that's okay. It's still pretty impressive. Baronash fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Mar 6, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
nm posted:Ask gawker how that worked. Not sure how Hulk Hogan's sex tape was tech news.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
nm posted:That's not why peter thel bankrolled the thing. Peter Thiel's sexual orientation is not tech news either.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:What exactly was the methodology of the scraping? What are "account recovery and search tools that let users look people up by phone numbers and email addresses" and how does that let you "take information from profiles"? What, does Facebook feed you the account's email or password when you click Forgot Password? I don't know how account recovery plays into it, but you can (or at least could) typically find folks on Facebook by searching for their phone number or email address. Presumably, you can tie this information to public voter records and get some pretty detailed information about how to target voters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, is this list still accurate as to the data Cambridge Analytica had access to?quote:About me Because if so, okay? All of this is available to the hundreds of people that you're friends with anyway. I'm sure that some of my status updates from 10 years ago would be pretty cringeworthy if someone were to plaster them on a billboard, but it's not like any of this is sensitive information.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
poemdexter posted:Some of us don’t have hundreds of friends and don’t want non friends seeing everything. These companies are only "seeing" your information insomuch as Facebook does: a bunch of cells in a CSV file that is being analyzed by a script to make assumptions about you. Sure, someone could, if they were so inclined, open it up in Excel and read it. But if you have information that you want to keep secret from a sufficiently motivated bad actor, why do you have it on Facebook?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
poemdexter posted:Like I should be able to post "work sucks" on my wall without my employer having any possible way of seeing it. I should be able to because facebook security settings lead me to believe that's what's actually happening. I mean, this is getting into the "sufficiently-motivated bad actor" territory. Unless you have a genuine concern that your employer would put a Facebook quiz together, hope one of your Facebook friends would take it, use that permission to gain access to your data, and then read the resulting data to find that "work sucks" post, (AKA Cambridge Analytica's method) then Facebook's security settings are likely doing their job. A far more likely scenario is that one of your Facebook friends is also a coworker and tells the boss that you said "work sucks."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
twodot posted:How would Facebook go about solving the problem of "people give away their Facebook credentials to third parties"? By limiting what data can be accessed by their API, which they did in 2015 as a response to issues like this. That API change stopped allowing apps to gain access to your friends' data just because you agreed to share your own. There was a lot that Facebook could have done, but didn't do until there were issues because it made their platform less attractive to developers and advertisers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:Rights need to be given to us by our idiot rear end law makers so maybe its time we started talking about what those could be. I think that allowing folks to request the deletion of data they have provided a specific company (and by this I would include things like search history, purchases, and Netflix viewing logs) would be a good first step. Realistically though, it's just going to lead to more companies operating as grey-market data brokers, and I'm not sure that is an improvement.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Gum posted:Or you can just not allow users to give apps access to their friends' data since there's no legitimate reason to ever do that An app that recommends jobs at places your friends work. An app that suggests restaurants based on ones your friends have rated. Plenty of other use cases that involve probing your friend group for recommendations. I'm not just making these up either, these were all apps that existed before Facebook removed the "Friends' Data" feature from their API in 2015. There were use cases, and Facebook kept the feature for years because it was valuable to developers and advertisers, and they prioritized those groups over your privacy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The whole "VR/AR is failing and Magic Leap is a disaster" thing is pretty common when it comes to new tech. This article is basically survivorshipbias.txt. VR could absolutely have some previously unforeseen use cases, but I think it's telling that the reaction hasn't been "everyone will want this for all of their games" and instead has been "well, it's nice for flight simulators and certain games that really work to incorporate it." There is a strong possibility that VR remains a fairly niche market.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:AR and VR seem like things people very obviously want and companies will keep making until someone actually makes it well. There isn't really any chance it's ever going to be dropped as a concept no matter how many times any specific company fails. Pretty much everyone wants AR and VR if it worked well enough. And I'm not trying to be down on this tech entirely, because I fully admit to being a true believer in augmented reality. If it can get fast and immersive enough, it opens up a ton of potential for physical adventure games. It could reinvigorate the paintball industry (or lasertag or something) by turning fairly mundane landscapes into environments straight out of Battlefront. Crumbling landmarks of ancient civilizations could give visitors a sense of what those places looked like in their heyday. Like VR, I think it'll remain fairly niche, but those particular niches will be drat impressive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:some revisionist history to ignore the whole web 2.0 push that coincidentally happened at the same time What? What does that have to do with web apps?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah a lot of Americans just have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea of cars not being a strictly necessary thing to own, especially for families with kids, because the environment they were immersed in since birth just assumes cars are The One True Way To Get Around, so how could it be any other way? Who qualifies in this "a lot of Americans" group? Cause this is like the 3rd or 4th time in the past couple weeks I've seen someone in D&D say how "a lot of Americans" can't fathom some simple concept that exists elsewhere. Like, I can fathom the existence of grocery delivery services and robust public transportation systems just fine, and it's cool that those are both available in a country that is literally smaller than Chicagoland. My ability to comprehend a car-less existence doesn't suddenly make it a feasible option in cities or suburbs that were designed 50-100 years ago with point to point car travel in mind. Baronash fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Apr 26, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
A Dumb Article posted:This project, known as knowledge engineering, aimed not to create programs that would detect statistical patterns in huge data sets but to formalize, in a system of rules, the fundamental elements of human understanding, so that those rules could be applied in computer programs. Rather than merely imitating the results of our thinking, machines would actually share some of our core cognitive abilities. What a loving tool.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:Nah it's more likely the purpose is to get more people to use Assistant more to increase advertising revenue. That seems pretty obvious and straightforward compared to them trying to eliminate... What? Personal assistant jobs? You're right, because I can't think of a single industry that relies on large numbers of humans to make and receive calls about a specific topic. Like, if you honestly can't come up with a use case for a natural language interface, you're being willfully obtuse.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Also duplex is a thing where you call them, not a thing where they call you. Okay? Are you under the impression that switching this around is some impossible feat? quote:The only jobs it would get rid of is of people that have personal assistants that set up appointments for them. Companies already have phone trees and stuff.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:If you can't recognize that the difference between handling a very narrow set of parameters like making a reservation are different than handling the vast majority of call center stuff I don't know what to tell you. Jose Valasquez posted:Phone trees for the easily automated stuff already exist. Let's take this at face value. Sure, the easily automated stuff has already been automated, but now the technology has improved and you can begin to automate the stuff that was too complex for a phone tree or too frustrating for a consumer. As you pick off some of the low-hanging fruit in the "moderately difficult to automate" category, then you need fewer humans to handle what is left. This cycle repeats and repeats until you have automated away employees, then departments, and then (potentially) entire industries.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:I think you're wildly optimistic about the timeline, but is a gradual replacement of jobs with automation inherently bad? In a society where you need a job to earn money, need money to buy food, and need food to not starve, yes.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:I guess we should stop all technological progress then Yes, this is the only solution. Or, comedy option, we act like compassionate human beings and disassociate being employed from having the right to exist.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:I mean, I agree with having a strong social safety net but that is kinda separate from whether or not technology should move forward. I don't think it is realistic to stop all innovation until the social safety net is fixed. Nobody is advocating stopping technological progress, so I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with distilling everyone's argument down to that.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:My point is all but the most trivial technological advances are going to cause the need for some job to change. Where do we draw the line on what is allowed to be developed? It seems like at the very least we would need to stop researching AI entirely. Who are you arguing with? I'm not suggesting we limit technological progress, and it would be impossible to do so even if that was my point. We perpetuate societies that value people who work, while simultaneously doing everything we can to squeeze more productivity out of fewer people. These are naturally-competing end goals. So we can either move people into shittier and shittier jobs in order to preserve our core belief that "thou shalt work until dead," or we can accept that a functional society doesn't require 100% employment in order to exist, and provide for the individuals whose talents we have made obsolete.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:I think literally every poster in this thread is for a universal basic income. Tell that to the posters who will happily tell you how the local, middle class Baronash fucked around with this message at 04:01 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So like, you really aren't aware that by far the majority of seamstresses in American history were sweatshop workers or what? It was really really not a middle class profession. fishmech posted:Citation highly needed. Like, a society centered around work is a fundamental part of capitalism and if you're going to pretend that capitalism hasn't had an influence all over the world, then I don't know what the gently caress to tell you. Baronash fucked around with this message at 04:08 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's not a citation. Telling people they should work is not valuing work, an example of valuing work would be oh, say, paying high wages. And for your daily supply of pedantry, here's fishmech. fishmech posted:Just having all those people sharing space introduced efficiencies and specialization of its own
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:a) Drunk driver presses butan to putter to roadside and call for a tow/driver service. Insurance remains happy, no DUI has occured, sky does not fall. Except you're all of a sudden putting drivers (who might otherwise have taken a taxi, Uber, or had a friend pick them up) in a lovely situation where their car is on some random-rear end street because the self-driving mode failed. You're normalizing the use of self-driving cars as a DD, and expecting the drunk driver to make the rational, yet inconvenient and potentially expensive, decision in awful circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If the literal only thing you had to diagnose heart conditions was dental x-rays you could do better than random by just counting teeth and assuming they were older the less teeth they had and come out ahead on your correct hit rate than if you simply had no data and went by no data guesses. You keep making the assumption that there is no way for an ML model to return results that are worse than a coinflip, which is demonstrably false.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:If the result is worse than a coinflip, don't you just do the opposite and now your results are better than a coin flip? Your results would only be "better" in the sense that it would make numbers go up. But if you're getting results that are worse than random, then your model is actively making the wrong choices, which suggests that there are biases in your training or testing data. Saying "do the opposite of what this model says" would be worse than useless in that situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
actionjackson posted:EU fined Google for 5B which they make in one day or something I'm assuming Google can keep a law office fighting this for centuries for quite a bit less than 5 billion dollars, so what are the odds they ever actually pay up?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2018 18:25
|
|