tgv

how AI poster designs have taken over local advertising

Tale as old as time: a race to the bottom. Businesses trying to cut corners, thinking they can offset it against losses from exiting customers. If it wasn't, a lot will just cut more corners.

That's only if the company's revenue is in excess of 100B. There aren't many companies like that. Certainly not enough for an AI platform to monetize.

But don't you fall in the same trap as they try to lure you with: expressing a CEO's value as revenue/profit optimization? With that kind of logic, you should pivot your business, whatever it is, to whatever is looking more profitable in the short term. It's short-sighted. And it misses the ethical and social aspect of the organization that forms the company.

It looks as if there is a significant difference in treating updates to complex objects, and probably scheduling as well.

The argument is not about "is polyphony shifting harmony" but about "does the brain encode two or more separate signals for polyphonic music." There's nothing that prevents the brain from encoding the whole thing in one stream, and taking that apart at a later stage. E.g., it might code music like "G3 over F, F3 over F, Em, A3 over Em, B3 over Em, C#4 over A7, etc."

It's not that it has to be like this, just that a mere theoretical argument cannot exclude it. And even then, musical perception has basically no relation to language processing.

Sloppily. I doubt there's much information on the web that says "mounting a BRIMNES takes five hours, twenty minutes." So what's an LLM to do? Produce any number in the semantic vicinity of the sequence "mounting"+ "BRIMNES" + "takes". So that can be anything that says "building an IKEA closet cost me" or "climbing mount Bayimes takes on average" or perhaps even "building a mountain bayke [spelling error] can take". And then from all sentences that get close to that point, it takes the next likely token. So 320 minutes it is.

I think we can't even build a radio transmitter that covers 48 light years.

There is better software, although it might not meet OP's goal. There's e.g. Melodyine, which can identify (and change) notes from individual instruments in polyphonic passages, and there are also tools to estimate and remove reverb and other forms of processing. Those are based on classical DSP. OP just wanted to use "AI".

Mine was a mere $49B. Fucking idiots.

That's not a good argument. First, music is not speech. It doesn't require linguistic processing. Second, you can hear chords instead of individual voices, so polyphony can be perceived as shifting harmony, and it usually is.

Decomposing sounds from (fully produced?) tracks into underlying components, and then giving the user the option to synthesize them with different parameter settings. I think.

Or selling that data to your insurance company or ICE.

Because it's going to be used in any possible way, and certainly not for the good of the people, as imply in your "naive" false dichotomy.

"Should all inhaleable substances be controlled? But then people won't be able to breathe. So smoking must be permitted unconditionally!"

There are quite a lot of people out there with older browsers. You probably never meet them. I work for a company that gets processes 700k well distributed surveys per year, and there's always a bunch of old Chrome versions. Probably because it's "SamsungBrowser". That doesn't upgrade so easily. There are also people using third party browsers for points: you do a task, you get points. It's totally unclear when those get updated. Last month, there is an entry for Chrome 103 running on some old version of CrOS. I also see the occasional PlayStation browser, and other uncommon devices. And then we're talking Western Europe. The situation in e.g. Slovenia and Chile, where we also occasionally collect data, is different, probably a money issue.

And I wish you wouldn't update Edge so aggressively. Only last month, it turned out that Edge on Android refuses to play a video if it's under 5 seconds.

BTW, Apple does update the browser on older OS versions.

The site is apparently one of those AI generated bait traps. The link to the original article is in the (current) top comment.

eye-watering budgets

What do you think Google and Microsoft have? The writer is an MS engineer, deeply involved in Chrome/Edge. This has nothing to do with being able to deliver for the user or the developer, but only for Google's position in the ad market.

What does a web dev have to do with Apple's choice?

From the article:

But how much relief should long-suffering web developers expect? ... Web developers wouldn't have cause ... influential developers like Jeremy ... That chasm is instrumental in trapping users and developers ... That's to say nothing of the heavily requested features no developer can use on iOS

What does your comment have to do with the argument the article is making?

The article isn't very honest, IMO. There's no need for Safari to adopt all those changes. Almost none is an improvement for the user, and certainly not for users with older browsers (there are quite a few of those, and telling them to upgrade is basically telling them GTFO).

And the author is heavily involved in Blink/Chrome/Edge. There's a section devoted to it, where he blasts nonsense such as "Chromium and Blink are explicitly organised to make and defend space for leadership, but our ability to lead in new areas is tied to quality." No, they are explicity organized to allow Google to stay dominant. It is not in the interest of the user. It is actively working against the user. Complaining about Safari only serves Google's ad kingdom.

If not all browsers support a feature, don't use it, or make it optional. It's not that hard. If you can't figure it out, ask your LLM.

The comment specifically said "microwave dinners." That's frozen meals you just heat up in the microwave.

why should I be bothered reading this kind of comment in each and every discussion thread?

To help other people who don't care about it so they can skip it. A subject tag would be nicer.

It’s been months of this , we get it already.

And I am tired of the constant barrage of AI proselytizing.

I know survey data is weak. I think you'll find that 95% of all psychological research is bad.

But your explanation isn't "much more plausible". It is based on absolutely nothing, and the priori are against it. You only have a vague idea of correlation between answers (based on probably equally unreliable papers), but nothing on the missing factor. In this paper, however, they at least take some effort to find structure in the responses, and this factor correlated stronger than the others. Shaky, but it has a basis: phones/social media/etc. are terribly addictive.

In contrast, psychologists mightily struggle to find replicable experimental results. That's what you need here.

No, that's not needed here. The paper might not be good, but we need to get rid of the phones. It's obvious that it's a problem. Just try to take someone's phone away. What "we" do not need here is distraction from the problem.

Why not just link to the C code then?

A much more plausible causal explanation

Why is that much more plausible? It implies that it has always been there, and that nothing has changed since the last century, which is unlikely. Unless you want to introduce some other recent factor, but that is going to be even less likely.

And why? Because other studies have shown how addictive "phone" use is, and how it isolates people. And addicts (drugs, alcohol) are bad caretakers.

So there's really nothing that makes the explanation implausible.

You may ask yourself if it's not your own addiction speaking.

Saying a variable is of type pointer to any value instead of just any value doesn't make a difference for the semantics (except in some bad cases, like default parameter values).

It's also pragmatic...

So it's almost like Javascript. That something is not a source of bugs, is not proof of strong typing. Python uses type information in some cases, that's it. E.g., it's trivial to load some record or file of the wrong type, and only find out much later. That's a real source of very unpleasant bugs.

It's not just unsafe, it's this:

    let r = unsafe { &*p };

Puthon is so strongly typed it lets you assign a string to an integer variable, and or compare the two or add a float and an int. Or multiply an array by a number; something which gets overturned if you use numpy. Python's strong typing mostly boils down to some operator rejecting mixed types.

You're right, it is called LibRedirect.

Don't look at what your marketing/landing page does first

True. Also: the landing page and all the other corporate boasting are often run by a marketeer or similar, who knows nothing about the technical part. They just have a design, and outsource implementation. So it just ends up somewhere.

There are browser extensions (eg. Redirect for Firefox) that will automatically replace x.com with xcancel.com.

Then the US used to bribe our researchers. It's tit-for-tat in this case.