Absence of such a claim is a commentary on its own, intended or not. Economic activity is almost always presented as a positive thing. It’s said to create jobs, generate wealth, increase production, etc. And here most of the things on the list moved massive amounts of capital without producing any of the positive effects. We get an odd WWW proposal that did actually produce those effects, but for each of those we also get a dozen of blockchain links. I’d say same goes for AI. While it has more utility than blockchain ever did it’s hard to say it was net positive overall to date.
How much money? I mean, the natural answer is full price but that’s not the amount the author gets from a regular sale. There’s a whole range where it’s cheaper to freebooters and still more profitable to the author.
I’ve seen an argument that buying an album from a musician (or a physical media or merch) and pirating the rest of their library in most cases more profitable to the musician than streaming.
I suppose there’s a similar dynamic in publishing where the overhead created by all the intermediaries is significant compared to the actual work done by the author, editor, designers, and so on.
By this measure tweeting “end your life” at no one in particular should be classified as a weapons of mass destruction.
There’s intent to cause harm. If people actually do, it would substitute achievement of the intent. The mechanism is novel, unlike knives and bullets. Maybe hit rate is a bit low but still, the potential number of targets makes it almost a certainty it would work.
—
We learned back in 80s—even earlier—that mixing data and executable code is not a good idea. It took some decades to move onto a different approach. Now we’re back to it with LLMs. It’s not a novel problem. The results are very much predictable.
Broad appeal? You can’t do anything good aiming for broad appeal. People like too different things, they all don’t mash together well. If you add to many tings that appeal to different people you end up with incoherent mess. Instead of appealing to everyone you end up pissing off everyone in many different ways.
Look at the Ring of Power. Did it have broad appeal? Maybe, first 2 episodes brought in 25 million viewers. The whole first season was watched by 150 millions, despite season completion being ~40%. For reference, X-Files pulled in more only in 1 of its 11 seasons with most under 20 mil, and Friends lowered in 20-25 mil with only one season being about 30 mil. So the numbers are impressive but do you know anyone who loves the Rings of Power? Anywhere near to how people love SG-1?
Take I’d for example. They released source code for genre defining extremely popular games and were fine.
And how often is code reused anyway? Every online game seem to either use mostly stock server code that comes with the engine or build anew every time.
Technically correct, but… Want to build a web app, every more or less popular framework is async. Want to make a web request? High change of async. Database? Very likely async, too. A huge fraction of crates are async. Right now crates.io says there are "54172 reverse dependencies of tokio”. And the page that lists them struggles mightily to load. And that’s only direct dependencies of tokio, no indirect ones, no dependencies on other runtimes, no generic dependents.
DLNA usually doesn’t force any system and more or less exposes fs. Some TVs natively have a client. Otherwise Kody or some other client app can be used to browse and play files.
As far as I can tell plex only wants separate folders for different kinds of media and file names that give at least some clue to what it is. Plex is much more lax.
One thing Plex does better is media detection. Like you can plop all your shows in a folder and it still will make sense of it. Jellyfin insists on a very specific directory structure and file naming. It’s very frustrating if you only want to watch a show and not interested in maintaining a perfect library.
It does give full access but Obsidian does tell you that. Community plugins are not enabled by default, you have to enable them manually. Same happens with a shared vault: once you get it you still have to manually enable plugins. So far no one managed to sneak in a plugin completely unnoticed.
A feature request of sorts. An option to reveal and highlight the element the color is for would be cool. There are so many colors and so many elements of the UI that it’s not immediately obvious where it is to properly see the changes I make.
I’d guess it has much more to do with the extra load agentic ai generates. If we take the charts in the OP at face value, do you think gh suddenly exploded in popularity? At this point I think almost everyone who has any use for gh already has an account and use it as much as they ever would. But all the charts go to the moon. Gh obviously didn’t take into account that ai agents can generate a lot of activity they don’t have capacity for.
I feel like this is some sort of butchered metaphor because in a vacuum just picking a color that has no context or effect outside of the experiment framing is really easy. But it’s not that simple if there are some externalities. Say, red guarantees your survival but there’s 50% chance your pet will die. Or every red choice has a 10% flipping one red choice among your friends and family to blue. Now it’s not just a selfish choice but a choice with a known downside. This is a much more interesting game to play. Maybe even a more realistic one.