What does this have to do with the parent's comment?

Okay it's not 100% my device my content, so I shouldn't be allowed to run a local AI against the text?

IMHO you should be able to enjoy your books however you want. If you want to run a local AI against it, more power to you.

But my opinion doesn't matter. Only Amazon's does. That's the point I was making. The premise of "my device, my content" is flawed (because of the DRM Amazon uses) and undermines the argument.

Right, under that argument it's their content, their rules then - making this situation even more of a non issue because they're adding this feature themselves.

I agree with you completely but I'm absolutely shocked that Disney would agree to this. They are extremely protective of how their IP is used. Famously so.

Not anymore. Just like every other business on the planet it is being run by people focused solely on wealth extraction now

Thank you.

Sad I had to scroll this far to find a comment that wasn't pro-censorship of Fan Art because a character they saw on the internet offended someone's Protestant values.

Maybe it's just me, but I want people that are reasonably competent and you can work with. Maybe there are some jobs that require deep understanding of maths/proofs etc, but those are what, maybe 1 in 100 engineering jobs?

More often than not a deep interest in a particular technical domain is a liability. It's like that guy that insists on functional programming design patterns that insists on a fold with tail recursion where simple mutation could have easily sufficed. Or endless optimization, abstraction and forced patterns. Bro, you're working on building a crud app, we don't need spacecraft design.

The math puzzles like this are supposed to show deep mastery. I assure you that you don’t need DP in 99.999% if cases as well, but idiots are still asking house robber.

Why is this a negative for consumers? Doesn't everyone complain how they have to subscribe to 5 different streaming services, and plenty of people have to pay for a service just to enjoy one or two series?

I don't think consolidation is necessarily bad. It makes sense from a cost perspective too. I guess they could just license out the content, but this will probably grow the catalog a lot.

The production side is the problem. Netflix churns out shovelware crap designed to be on in the background. Every once in a while they get lucky or stick their neck out to acquire something good, but the batting average is very low. HBO on the other hand has the highest batting average, and the brand actually still stands for quality.

Of course Netflix is saying all the right things now to keep anti-trust off their backs, but at some which culture do you think is going to win out?

"Something good" is subjective and your opinion. They make a lot of shows to appeal to all kinds of different audiences. I'm not sure why you'd conclude they would 'drag down' the quality.

I think your comment is proving the point. Trying to make shows appeal to all kinds of services is not exactly an approach to making high quality shows. Masses tend to converge to mediocrity. If you consider it an art form then it really needs to come from the production side and not the consumption.

Right but the production strands are all still their own thing. It's not like there's one big "Netflix Originals" meat grinder all the shows will get lumped into. The existence of reality shows on Netflix for example doesn't mean that they're going to be incapable of producing prestige dramas.

But I guess the budget allocation, return on investment, time to develop a series etc have to come from the higher ups

This year Netflix and HBO both tied for most Emmy awards, at 30 each. Netflix is usually in the top few slots for both nominations and wins.

Consolidation means that incumbents rely on fickle intrinsic motivation rather than competitive pressure to keep quality high and prices low. All too often, monopolies or oligopies become complacent and merely "extract rents".

The problem doesn't appear immediately; it appears over time where the market has been consolidated into only a couple companies and then they can raise prices as much as they want because there is no alternative. This is what cable was like for a long time. Part of subscription fatigue is the constantly raising prices of these services that used to be very cheap. Netflix having WB content isn't a bad thing, the problem is ownership because it will not be available elsewhere.

Number goes up, content goes down.

It’s negative because under current market regulation and enforcement, big company buys small company and enshittifies every product.

What people want (presumably) is a market where you pay once and you access everything and the money get divided based on creators, distribution or whatever.

Under current market conditions, that will happen only in the limit where a single company owns everything.

Job training is a lot more than learning how to use equipment. It's about showing up on time, dealing with coworkers and being a productive member of a team. That's best learned on the job and is a big reason people don't like new grads. Its like going out on a date with someone that has never had a girlfriend. Let someone else break them in and screen them.

Higher ed unfortunately almost desocializes a lot of people. They live in a bubble and become insufferable obsessed with politics and social issues that are disruptive and inappropriate in the workplace

There are profit margins on inference from what I understand. However the hefty training costs obviously make it a money losing operation.

I'm skeptical of these descriptions. Usually it's something like kids that sign up for free lunch or some survey.

You should look at something objective like underweight or households without heat.

At the moment, we (in the U.S. anyway) don't charge for tht true cost of operating roads and private cars, which makes transit look bad in comparison. If we want to make transit look reasonable, we need to stop pretending cars are so cheap.

> we (in the U.S. anyway) don't charge for tht true cost of operating roads and private cars

Also, the US heavily subsidizes fossil fuels, including with military spending.

That is only true if public transport is supposed to participate in the free market economy, which it doesn't have to.

If it is decided by a city government that we want public transport as a public service, paid for by taxes and other means then removing prices is an option that could make sense in the right situations.

Then it's covered by the government and cost is more or less ignored. It still costs something but now there is no or little visibility as to how much it costs which is obviously bad for incentives and general governance

Bad for who? The incentive is for more people to use the system, since we are aiming for a Greater Good kind of outcome. Cost and efficiency becomes a government problem, which we manage through policy and voting.

The road system doesn't have a price tag per trip, yet it's costs are managed through policy and governance. No difference here in my opinion.

I don't meant to compare the VC model specifically (though I can see the givaway comparison now that you mention it), just innnovation generally.

I think your point about economic signals is very good - I wonder if any locality charges at cost; does NYC do it now? - though 'charging at cost' undermines the goals: universal mobility, reducing climate impact, reducing congestion, and (I think) increasing economic liquidity and competition (e.g., in the labor market, in retail, etc.).

We need another solution: Maybe vouchers for people based on income? That becomes much more complex.

Also, I would gues it impacts ease of use and adoption - imagine being able to just hop on any passing bus, as opposed to finding your payment, going only through the front door, paying, etc.

Wouldn't the more reasonable argument be "The economy is failing. Keep the kids gooning to distract them"

Maybe it's similar to the handling of home office. A person at home isn't spending 30 bucks for lunch in the city. The kids have to stop gooning and go back to lurking around in shopping malls

Let the kids think they're getting away with something. It's actually in 1984, literally teens thinking they're rebelling by getting access to porn.