Is YouTube doing it with small creators actually in mind? Who knows, other than them?

I am pretty confident in guessing that they are not doing it for selfless reasons. Imo the reason is that the less information they give the user, the more you are beholden to the algorithm choosing for you.

But depending how they hide it it actually might not just be users, but also companies that e.g. buy ads from them. The less information they get, the more they need to trust whatever metric google offers them

I recently read a plausible reason that I hadn’t thought of yet:

Apple would need to include a specific flexible cable rated for continuous movement with the mouse. If the port was in the regular spot, then people would ofc also use it wired at times. However if buyers would use regular charging cables, then the experience would both be worse and the cables might get damaged over time from bending.

I still think the main reason is simply that they value form over function, otherwise the shape would be more ergonomic, but it’s another interesting factor to consider.

I’m sure if bigger batteries sold better there would be more (any) options. The issue is not enough people care.

This in my opinion is only true to some degree. The real world doesn’t reflect the idealistic demand->supply concept, and instead there are many other factors that play a role. There’s the reverse supply->demand effect aswell, where companies especially through marketing steer consumer demand into the direction that suits them.

The issue is not enough people care.

Here the big issue is that not all qualities are equally easy to experience.

When you go into a store you can immediately see and feel the effect a larger, brighter screen or a thinner device has, the difference in real world battery life for your own specific use case is impossible to quantify. Even more so when asked to extrapolate it into the future and factor in degrading capacities. You can’t even directly translate a concrete number like the mAh size of the battery into it, since hardware/software efficiency and useage patterns can distort it substantially.

That was my initial thought aswell, but after thinking about it I changed my opinion to preferring the simple majority.

Imo one of the deciding factors is how you think about it. Do you see it as a choice between two conscious actions (acceptance or active rejection), or is only the “yes” vote an active choice and “no” something of a “natural” state?

Also if you set hurdles for change to high, then you are potentially hindering progress and systematically favoring conservatism. Which isn’t always bad, but the status quo and how things were done in the past aren’t always sustainable and worth the advantage.

The concept you are describing is called Innovator’s Dilemma and imo the most recent example for it happening is with legacy car manufacturers missing the ev transition, because it would eat into their margins from ICE. But i am not sure if this is a good example for it.

However imo it seems like a great example for what Steve Jobs describes in this video about the failure of Xerox. Namely that in a monopoly position marketing people drive product people out of the decision making forums. Which seems exactly the case here where the concerns of an engineer were overruled by the higher ups, because it didn’t fit within their product segmentation.

Fdroid has automatic updates since this year.

What i still don’t quite understand with these kind of buyouts is who lends them the money and who gets saddled with the debt? Surely banks know the drill and wouldn’t want to borrow and hold debt for a company destined to fail in such a way.

Do banks get repaid before that happens and the only people being owed are small contractors and employees? Does the bank repackage the debt and sell it to someone else? Or are the interest payments high enough to just factor in losing part of the money borrowed with high certainty?

How do you profit of a company that hemorrhages a few billion a year?

While it runs a deficit you don’t or at least only through increased valuations, which ofc assume that you’ll eventually be able to turn a profit. Will this ever happen for OpenAI, i have no idea, but that is the bet. And for the likes of Microsoft spending a few billions on bets like this isn’t that big of a deal, just look at how much Meta burns in their VR department.

Even Amazon had AWS, which was the absurdly profitable core business at the center of a cost bleeding distribution center.

Uber was running a deficit for a long time until it turned profitable. It’s pretty normal for many new companies to burn money first before they turn a profit. The biggest cost seems to be training new models constantly, and i assume one hope is that eventually this slows down. Then they need to get operating costs down that where i think they currently roughly break even (?) or maybe run a minor loss, but that seems doable, considering the pace at which hardware is still improving.

OpenAI is doing nothing to generate economic value.

I wouldn’t say that it is nothing, but at this very moment it probably doesn’t equal the immense amount of resources poured into it. That said, if things improve both in terms of the quality of responses you can get from models as well as reduced costs to run them, then there is definitely huge economic potential.

You mean when the board of directors wanted to fire him? Considering the recent news of OpenAI transitioning towards for profit i think they got what they wanted from keeping him in charge. Seems like something Microsoft would benefit from and if they’d have gotten a different CEO at the time who knows if it had come to this point.

spoon theory

Thanks for introducing me to a new concept (or at least a term for it), always nice to learn something new.

Agreed. Future carbon capture capabilities are used to justify current emissions.

Thanks for the link. That is certainly a frustrating development, since they had to sell it for a much steeper discount before as the article mentions.

Importantly they tried to enter the market with a $40 purchase price, when the existing competition is mostly free to play.

There might be public displeasure about it, but I think behind the scenes India buying Russia oil is expected and at least to some degree accepted (or possibly even wanted).

The bigger thing is Russia not generating profits from those sales, which I am speculating is not the case at the prices India is buying at. The upside of Russian oil still being available to the world market is keeping the prices lower, something Europe is very much interested in.

I also have regular problems with some subtitles. My solution is to enable using an external player in the jellyfin AndroidTV app (i think its under playback->advanced options) and then use VLC player which i’ve also installed to play the movie. That has never failed to me.

Downside is that unlike the regular exo player i don’t think it supports dolby vision, so i have to change this setting back and forth occasionally. It used to be that there was an option that you could tick, so it asked you everytime which player to use before playing a movie (with the downside that it couldn’t resume playing at a saved timestamp), but after a somewhat recent update this went away.

To be fair the article mentions that they did have it figured out, but later canceled the connection, which was part of a separate project.

Seems like the exact problem that could happen with anything, but ofc shouldn’t. Because it really is such a simple mistake that anyone with a brain, who is in charge of making those decisions, should look at the plans and see it. There for sure are systemic issues, if something this basic can fall through the cracks.

Besides the obvious fuck up, just judging from the picture in the article I also see a complete lack of solar panels or charging stations.

Feels like when you are already spending such a huge sum just for a fancy place to store some cars, then you could at least add that functionality.

The issue is that would at best “reset” their reputation to zero. But the state that they’d like to go back to would be similar to “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM”, which ofc only works with the existing name. And this line of thinking is what got damaged by the degrading processors (and maybe how they handle it).

But Intel has never been in worse shape. So I think it’s less about Intel considering it and more about if it gets forced on them either by activist investors (I remember seeing an article that Intel prepares to defend against that) or necessity.

I don’t think so. The degrading processors are certainly bad, but in the grand scheme of things won’t move the needle. The reputation loss is probably worse than whatever fine they end up paying (and they will drag it out).

The split would be between design and manufacturing. And it would mean a massive shift, not business as usual.

The design side is probably in better shape and would increase their use of TSMC instead of using the now spun off Intel fabs.

The manufacturing side would have it rough. But we are talking about only one of 3 manufacturers of leading edge chips here (together with tsmc and samsung), not something you “conveniently let go bankrupt”. They’d try to raise more money to finish their new fabs and secure customers (while trying to make up for the lost volume from the design side). But realistically I’d say that similar to Global foundries they would drop out of the expensive leading edge race.