231–240 of 244 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah… “libertarian”
I put all the qualifiers around “libertarian” precisely because plenty of libertarians are perfectly nice people with no designs of building a Bond villain hideout in New Zealand once there’s nothing left to loot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's enjoyable for 20 minutes a day, especially when waiting on something. The key things are: 1) time offline is on your side. you can saturate yourself with current trends that interest you pretty quickly. You need to allow actual real world time to pass for those trends to update. 2) scroll with purpose and intent. aggressively dismiss things that don't immediately get your attention from any unknown source. (Help…
One idea I had was being able to share your curated algorithm to others. ie. Your instagram explore page, or your specific tiktok recommends. People could subscribe to x person's recommends and see what they see.
That's the next influencer game imo. Having people want to see your feed(s)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does the GP's comment strike you as implying that the minimum is calculated per person or session?
> each loss does in fact bring you closer to the winning spin To me that implies that the machine is keeping track of a period of time to make sure it pays out 75% during that period. Each spin is random and independent of whether it's been on a losing streak or not.
My intent was not to imply that each individual losing pull increases the odds, but more that if you just keep rolling the same two dice long enough eventually it's going to come up snake eyes. And this leads to people (especially gambling addicts) continuing to pull that lever after they are long past what they can afford. They know if they just keep pulling the lever (or more likely pushing the bet max button these days) that eventually it has to pay. But the reality is the casinos are predators that feed on that behavior.
Most casinos actually have a much higher takeout rate than the legally required minimums as well; it's very common that they are set closer to the 90-97% range. It's generally observed that a higher takeout will result in more money for the house. With a higher takeout people are more likely to keep winning a bit and feel like they are getting lucky, so they will actually spend more money than if the aren't hitting at all.
The Three Trends (according to the article): 1. Medium: text -> images -> video -> 3D graphics -> VR 2. AI: time -> rank -> recommend -> generate 3. UI: click -> scroll -> tap -> swipe -> autoplay By this definition, the end of the line is a totally passive consumption of endorphin-inducing pablum that blots out the real world. (I may be exaggerating a touch.) It might stop short of a wire into the pleasure centers o…
The discussion concerning trends needs to clearly address which perspective the analysis involves... The OP looks as if it involves recommendations for development trends moving forward, rather than serving advice based on the perspective of creators and contributors of content... That's fine, but the article refers to the Kardassians being upset as creators, as if there aren't tons of other unsponsored creators and app users (without their own TV shows) involved in the process of keeping these platforms vibrant and alive.
As social media apps brutally run towards profit making, they are underestimating the value of creators. If they continue that trend, they will basically turn into pre-programmed TV channels... Losing the very aspect of participation they are built upon. If most app users on TikTok are publishing content, after cycles of being ignored, they simply stop logging in... Not viewing other content, not buying items shown in ads, not engaging, and thus making the app die.
The ideal of opportunity and growth on platforms for independent creators is largely being hijacked on a regular basis, and creators are catching onto it just now, after years of working for little to no reward on platforms that became rich.
There seems to be a constant sentiment to capture the market in order to be a monopoly among social platforms, but the rug gets pulled whenever they do things that alienate users and creators. Instead of thinking about technological advancement and capabilities of platforms, we need to start looking deeply at the value this platforms add to the lives of individuals beyond frivolous entertainment, because instead of creating a user account, for entertainment we could simply watch television, which doesn't sell us the ideal that we can all meaningfully participate and require us to scroll through it on a phone all day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me a little of Star Trek TNG's The Game [1], where the crew becomes addicted to an automated AR/VR game that just sits there autoplaying, directly manipulating the brain's pleasure sensors. Something like this, but one that also slowly transfers the contents of the user's bank account to a corporation, could be the ultimate end-result of our current capitalist-technologist trajectory. 1: https://en.wikipedia.…
> Reminds me a little of Star Trek TNG's The Game[1], where the crew becomes addicted to an automated AR/VR game that just sits there autoplaying, directly manipulating the brain's pleasure sensors. Huh. That appears to be a mostly-accurate summary of Wikipedia's description of the episode, which heavily features the term "addicted". But it's an awful summary of the episode itself, which doesn't use the concept of ad…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Reminds me a little of Star Trek TNG's The Game[1], where the crew becomes addicted to an automated AR/VR game that just sits there autoplaying, directly manipulating the brain's pleasure sensors. Huh. That appears to be a mostly-accurate summary of Wikipedia's description of the episode, which heavily features the term "addicted". But it's an awful summary of the episode itself, which doesn't use the concept of ad…
Interesting take. As a TNG geek who's watched the episode multiple times, all I ever took away from it was an extremely overt, stereotypically early-90s "Drugs/addiction are bad" message. Particularly, Wesley and Robin's discussions about addiction sound like they are straight out of a DARE pamphlet.
- People neglect their responsibilities in order to indulge their addiction.
- People consume their resources (e.g., by selling their property) in order to indulge their addiction.
- People fail to achieve their goals because they are distracted by their addiction.
- People alienate their social contacts, either through neglect (see above) or through what is seen as excessive focus on their addiction.
None of these elements appear in the episode. No addiction-related themes appear in the episode.
Here are the plot elements that do occur in the episode:
- A foreign influence infiltrates the group and spreads uncontrollably. It is difficult to perceive directly.
- The foreign influence brainwashes and enslaves everyone who is exposed to it, substituting its own goals for theirs. Far from neglecting responsibilities, brainwashed victims will happily do extra work for no other purpose than to further the foreign goals.
- People who should be absolutely trustworthy, such as Captain Picard or Wesley's mother, are "replaced" by impostors who share their knowledge but whose goals are nefarious. (In this case, the person is not replaced in their entirety, but their mind is replaced with a new one.)
How would you describe that plot?
If you want a TNG episode themed around the perils of drug use, that would be The Naked Now, where the altered mental state of the crew threatens to destroy the ship. If you want one themed around addiction, that would be Hollow Pursuits, where Barclay's "holodiction" severely interferes with his performance of his duties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“You only started trying it out once they moved to GANS and VR headsets. You are not pathetic or anything, could get a real girl if you wanted to. Just don't have time. Have to focus on your career for now. "Build your empire then build your family", that's your motto. You strap on the headset and see an adversarial generated girlfriend designed by world-class ML to maximize engagement. She starts off as a genericall…
sounds better than wasting your time on actual females
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BeReal's growth is probably a good example of this kind of "organic" and "healthy" social media
Disclosure: I haven't used BeReal. I fully expect BeReal's model to change in less than two years from now (probably within a year). I see it quickly devolving into tedium after a while. Users will disable notifications to post, become passive consumers. "Influencers" drive adoption of platforms and it's hard to be the same type of influencer unless you're constantly living that lifestyle, which almost no influencer…
The Three Trends (according to the article): 1. Medium: text -> images -> video -> 3D graphics -> VR 2. AI: time -> rank -> recommend -> generate 3. UI: click -> scroll -> tap -> swipe -> autoplay By this definition, the end of the line is a totally passive consumption of endorphin-inducing pablum that blots out the real world. (I may be exaggerating a touch.) It might stop short of a wire into the pleasure centers o…
The fediverse is by design about manually managing your subscriptions. You only see content from people you follow and you're the one who completely controls the presentation of that content. This entire article is built on the wrong premise that people use social media for entertainment . I certainly don't — I'm not open to any content discovery on Instagram/Facebook/Twitter at all. I use social media to connect wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Medium" and "AI" are spot-on IMO, but the "UI" track seems suspect to me. "Click" and "Tap" are essentially the same thing (on a desktop vs. on a mobile device): the user actively selecting what content to view next. So are "scroll" and "autoplay" (for text/image and video content, respectively). In the former, the user has agency over what to view, and in the latter, the transition is automated. I'm very skeptical…
> "Click" and "Tap" are essentially the same thing Click in the article refers to plain old web navigation. There are links on the page, you move the mouse around and click on whichever one you want. Tap is referring to "Stories" interaction, which is more narrowed and less user choice than click. A story is playing, you tap anywhere on the screen and the next story replaces it and begins playing. I actually think "t…