Yup, because you get to be personally responsible for any outcomes just like you would be if you were driving without ai assistance. If you aren’t comfortable building and testing an open source project then it isn’t for you.
People cry daily that cybertrucks should not be street legal because they do not meet EU safety regulations but gluing plastic gadgets to your window yourself and calling it "AI assistance" is okay because the driver is ultimately responsible?
Complicated interaction with macOS Sequoia though. I’m on apple silicon and trying to capture on a multimon setup (although only capturing one screen) and the capture freezes painfully often. Going to window capture helps but doesn’t eliminate the problem. Seems to be related to ScreenCaptureKit. I’ve tried a lot to debug it but so far failed.
it's such an interesting subject matter, presented visually in a really nice way, but his script-writing is so jarring to listen to, and it feels like half the time he doesn't even really comprehend the words that he's reading out. perhaps it's just me though; he's got a lot of subs
Been quite a few years ago, but Dell support came to a tiny campground 100 miles from anywhere and swapped out my laptop motherboard within 24 hours of it failing. Sadly, their support is no longer as extraordinary.
It makes no sense to me when it comes to actual news because I can usually get the same info from 10 other sites for free. For unique content, I could see it working. My problem is when these sites charge to see the articles and still run ads right in the middle of the editorial. You get to do one or the other, not both.
I was a subscriber to wired magazine for over 10 years, but they kept reducing the articles and increasing the advertisements, to the point where 80% of the magazine was just advertisements.
I think the reason being these were more like "minipayments" or "centipayments", and not micropayments. When I used them, there was a real mental friction for deciding whether a particular article will be worth the $0.07-0.21 that it was priced at.
A far better model is either do actual micro payments, meaning sub-1 cent so you don't feel ripped off if an article was not what you were after, or to let you pay what you want after reading the article.
The economics of making this work is left as an exercise to the reader.
I think what I’d like is a service that’s about $14/mo with all you can read news. Then something like $7 of your subscription fee is divided across sources based on the amount you read them, tidal-style
Maybe. I refuse to pay for news though, on principle. I grew up with my dad working for the newspaper (in sales) and as far as I'm concerned, they make plenty of money through those channels and they don't need my money. If they need my money, then they're doing something wrong, got greedy, are "too big for their britches" (so to speak), or some combination of the above.
My mother has worked in local journalism for half a century - mostly radio, but some newspaper and the very occasional TV appearance. If they're making a lot of money, she sure isn't seeing it. Maybe whatever private equity company that owns the station this year is doing well, but they're not known for sharing with the other boys and girls so to speak. It's a shame because from what I can tell, she was a very good reporter but the role is reduced to a shadow of what it was when I was a kid. Obviously they're now talking about replacing her with AI, and she's about ready for a severance check I think.
I'd feel differently if and when journalism is as transparent about where the money goes (show the budget, even if just %'s). If I knew that my $10 subscription was actually going to journalism ... I'd pay $10.
But it's not transparent, and those sales guys/gals are making bank and who knows where the money is actually going. Clearly, not the journalists.
I understand this sentiment but it's extremely short sighted. Paying for news is about incentives. Much like Google having poor incentives to provide good unbiased search functionality based on the fact that their revenue comes from advertising, news work poorly aligns with advertising incentives also.
Whether you contribute to that or not is your choice.
One reason I subscribe to the New Yorker (beyond enjoying their content) is that they have legendarily high standards around fact-checking, which isn't something you can maintain unless you're paying people to do it. So I'd like to help them continue paying the people who do it.
I think it reinforces the resistance mindset. Humans don't like barriers to something they want, and they get satisfaction from getting around the barrier. The more often they do it, the more reinforcing it becomes
If you’re viewing on a mobile device, turn on reader mode and you can get the entire article. It doesn’t work for all paywalls, but appears to work for this one.
I had always read that (perhaps over-hopefully) as referring to the structural incentives of the Chinese economic system not leading to innovation rather than a racist statement that Asians can't innovate. Neither statement seems completely accurate but the former is considerably less offensive.
