yeah I'm not saying the blog is right or wrong; I'm just saying that describing bsky's features and asking "what's the issue?" means you aren't engaging with what it's actually saying.
Saying you do does not change what others see across your comments. I'd suggest reading the HN guidelines again. I do myself from time to time because there is some good internet decorum wisdoms in there. I hope by reading them, you can see your comments more like how we see them.
The bee movie, but every frame was passed through an AI to make it Ghibli style, the audio was turned into a transcript by a transcribing AI and then turned into audio by a TTS AI.
Very low code. Infinite scale. Name a better AI startup to invest.
>According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the average waist size is 38.5 inches (98 centimeters) for women older than 20 in the United States.2 This represents an increase of roughly two inches since the 1990s, reflecting broader trends in rising rates of obesity and metabolic conditions.3
Fryar CD, Kruszon-Moran D, Gu Q, Ogden CL. Mean Body Weight, Height, Waist Circumference, and Body Mass Index Among Adults: United States, 1999-2000 Through 2015-2016. Natl Health Stat Report. 2018;(122):1-16.
I have the impression it's more of a "bait and switch" thing. People get into streaming thinking they can just play games and make money, but then they realize nobody is going to watch someone play game X, they all want to watch game Y, because game Y is popular right now among the people who have the most time to play games and watch streams (kids). So they enter the industry thinking they can just do whatever they want, and quickly realize they have to do infinite things they don't want to actually reach the level of popularity they need.
I actually often have the opposite problem. The AI overview will assert something and give me dozens of links, and then I'm forced to check them one by one to try to figure out where the assertion came from, and, in some cases, none of the articles even say what the AI overview claimed they said.
I honestly don't get it. All I want is for it to quote verbatim and link to the source. This isn't hard, and there is no way the engineers at Google don't know how to write a thesis with citations. How did things end up this way?
I have to say, I suffer from both problems, just not simultaneously.
Depending on what I am searching for, and how important it is to me to verify the accuracy and provenance of the result, I might stop at the AI, or might find, as you have, that there is no there there.
But, no matter what, the AI is essentially reducing the ability of primary sources to monetize their work. In the case where the search stops at the AI, obviously no traffic (except for incessant LLM polling) goes to the primary source.
And in the case you describe, identical traffic (your search) is routed to multiple sources, so if one of them actually was the source of something you were interested in, they effectively wind up sharing revenue with other sources, because the value of every one of your clicks is reduced by how often you click.
ChatGPT was a research prototype thrown at end users as a "product".
It is not a carefully designed product; ask yourself "What is it FOR?".
But the identification of reliable sources isn't as easy as you may think, either. A chat-based interaction really makes most sense if you can rely on every answer, otherwise the user is misled and user and conversation may go in a wrong direction. The previous search paradigm ("ten snippets + links") did not project the confidence that turns out is not grounded in truth that the chat paradigm does.
There is no singular publishing org at MSFT. Each product publishes its own docs, generally following a style guide. But the doc process is up to the doc owner(s).
My dog does this thing where she picks a stick and gets you to pull on it, and she will pull on her end, too. She gets very focused on it. Pulling on the stick is the most important thing to her in that moment, when in fact it's just a stick she chose to turn into this tug of war.
That's not entirely unlike what you're doing here. You latched onto a misunderstanding of OP's intent, and by making a thing out of it got people to pull back, and now you also keep tugging on your end.
Except she does it on purpose and enjoys it, while I think you did it inadvertently and you do not seem that happy. But then, you're not a dog, of course.
You could stop pulling on the stick. I do enjoy these doggy similes, though. :)
This is a perfect description. I've probably been the dog at some point.
p_ing, see my nearby comment about what we mean by "multiple". Does that comment make any false "assumptions"? Or, is it you who are mistaken, persistently failing to understand what your interlocutors are saying?
There is no such thing as "making an assumption" on what a process "should be". I am asserting what it should be. A multi-trillion dollar company should absolutely have a robust review process in place. If one single person can submit plagiarised and defective material onto an official platform that implicates the company as a whole in copyright infringement, management has failed, ergo multiple people have failed, ergo the failure is systemic.
It is extremely well-known that individual humans make mistakes. Therefore, any well-functioning system has guards in place to catch mistakes, such that it takes multiple people making mistakes for an individual mistake to cascade to system failure. A system that does not have these guards in place at all, and allows one individual's failure to immediately become a system failure, is a bad system, and management staff who implement bad systems are as responsible for their failure as the individual who made the mistake. Let us be grateful that you do not work in an engineering or aviation capacity, given the great lengths you are going to defend the "correctness" of a bad system.
Journalism isn't twitter. A reporter just reports the facts, and nobody wants them to do more than that. If they started inserting their assumptions or making conclusions from the facts, that is no longer "news" that is an opinion piece.
Write some random stuff some user on reddit thinks, people call it bad journalism. Don't write it, people call it bad journalism. Poor journals can't win.
