Why are you right?

That's where the looking comes in.

Refusing to support your claims is not effective argumentation.

It ain't an argument.

I don’t care if most people aren’t going to do that. The company flat out shouldn’t be permitted to brick a device they already sold you, and this is a viable alternative.

>Basically, we have been, since 2010, only spreading out the same number of pixels on larger areas of glass

Only if you ignore that 4k entered and then became common in the consumer space since then, followed by the introduction of 8k.

A model trained on a very large corpus can't, because these behaviors are different or specialized enough they cancel each other most of the cases. You can forcefully fine-tune a model with a singular person's behavior up to a certain point, but I'm not sure that even that can capture the subtlest of behaviors or decision mechanisms which are generally the most important ones (the ones we call gut feeling or instinct).

OTOH, while I won't call human brain perfect, the things we label "shit" generally turn out to be very clever and useful optimizations to workaround its own limitations, so I regard human brain higher than most AI proponents do. Also we shouldn't forget that we don't know much about how that thing works. We only guess and try to model it.

Lastly, searching perfection in numbers and charts or in engineering sense is misunderstanding nature and doing a great disservice to it, but this is a subject for another day.

The understanding of the brain is far from complete whether they're "magical" or "shit."

Also obviously brains are both!

I don’t think waiting for profitability makes sense. They can be massively disruptive without much profit as long as they spend enough money.

Who is that meant to entice?

People who build data centers. Strong data protection laws (in a relatively stable democratic country) so that customers will feel okay putting their workloads in a data center, and then low regulatory burden and cost to the inputs to making a data center work (mainly electricity and water for cooling).

There would obviously still be things that would make a data center builder feel less-than-great about locating in a developing country, but there's also a LOT of money sloshing around in the data center buildout right now, if you could get people to just try it out with a small minority of their money it could be a very big deal for some countries.

>Many advertisers may avoid advertising or lower their ad budgets.

Great. Once that happens, we can work on regulation to kill even more advertising.

I think there is a fundamental problem with an ad-subsidized service. Even ignoring the privacy issues inherent to the way modern advertising works in practice (which you probably shouldn’t ignore), the mere presence of an advertiser as a third party whose interests the service provider must consider creates malign incentives.

I also think providing a service for free is fundamentally anti-competitive. It’s like the ultimate form of dumping. And there are many studies showing that people are irrational about zero-cost goods, so it’s even harder to compete against than might be expected.

Arguably, the advertiser is not merely a third party whose interests the service provider must consider, but rather the actual paying customer (and much more of the second party) whose interests the service provider must satisfy to make revenue. That to me puts into perspective the absurdity of this business model: the user is not the customer, the product or service itself is not the product but only a means to keep offering the actual product to the paying customer.

Yes, I mean from the consumer perspective. You're right that the user of an entirely ad-funded service isn't the real customer. They're still at least somewhat the customer when they're still providing some of the revenue though.

>The advertiser needs to expect to make more money in the scenario where they run the ad as compared to where they don't

They don’t necessarily make more money from every user though.

I addressed that above. If that's the point, the people with disposable income who view the ad subsidise the ad broker and the website as a hidden charge on a product which they probably didn't need. It doesn't get less efficient than that. I'd rather that people living under the poverty threshold get subsidised directly

Advertisers/brokers will also do everything to optimise to whom the ad is being shown to not waste they money. Poor people can't turn it into arbitrary cash, they can just waste time on video sites and freemium games while they barely (or don't) have enough money to make ends meet

I guess I am very much in the "let's pay fair and square" corner, both for websites/services and for taxes/subsidies where needed. I don't see it working reliably or efficiently any other way in the long run

>While that might be healthier by the book, one thing it certainly decreases is time with friends and potentially time to network with others or make connections you might not otherwise.

I'm a bit confused by the conflation here. You can drink alone or socialize sober. It may be the case that kids these days are socializing in person with friends less, but it's almost certainly not because they're drinking less.