Would the casinos benefit from a careful presentation of the mathematical odds of all the games and how to best position your wagers ?
Or would they benefit by seeming like a fantastic place to wine, dine, splurge on things you can spend money on, and also make a few wagers on fun betting games while you are at it ?
The advertising market is a place that used to be dominated by the big advertisers meeting with the big networks (upfronts), but now is dominated by large platforms that only marginally care about the biggest users because the tail is so long
I keep hearing it too. The bit I don't yet understand is, wouldn't it be in Google's interest to not do this? They ban on both sides of the market for seemingly no reason. Wouldn't maximizing all legitimate participation be much better? Also seems a lot more possible to do now with AI to check all campaigns, landing pages, etc.
Google is an overwhelming market leader vertically and horizontally. Not only do they not have to compete with their competition. They don't have to compete for their competition's business partners. They don't have to compete at all.
What's more, they're a publicly traded company. That means their primary product is no longer what they sell. Their primary product is stock dividends. That is their primary business now. Whether you're buying a service or a product from Google, you're no longer their true customer.
They treat such customers like they don't matter because they don't. And until they stop being in such a position of dominance, or someone magically transforms the whole of American business culture it won't change.
> What's more, they're a publicly traded company. That means their primary product is no longer what they sell. Their primary product is stock dividends. That is their primary business now. Whether you're buying a service or a product from Google, you're no longer their true customer.
It's not hero worship to think he knew what a customer was. It's pretty basic, and given he won the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, he probably knew more than the basics.
I imagine it's a side-effect of another fraud prevention effort. In my experience ad fraud on a google search ad is at least 17% of traffic, and potentially a lot more.
Whilst I don't doubt that Google invest heavily in fraud prevention, they're not actually succeeding.
Spam website owners pay for these bots, they get compensated for the conversions. In an ideal world, google’s ad prices and fraud detection would render this ineffective.
Hypothetically you would have already paid for the ads before your account gets suspended/banned then hypothetically Google just keep sending you automated replies denying your requests for support until you give up or lawyer up. And when you consider the shear scale Google's adtech networks run at, this would add up fast and generate revenue over costs. Hypothetically
I really don't get it. Ads are supposed to be Google's biggest revenue thing but the entire process is just so infuriating at times. Their ads dashboard/tool for running ads is one of the worst pieces of software i have used period. My theory is they just dont care about individual experience as long as businesses see value in it. Nobody is going to not run ads because the platform is from hell. They still need to run ads and thus suffering is okay.
When you want to keep your house warm, you ordinarily should not burn the rafters. However, when the house is about to collapse anyway, it is cheaper to dismantle the roof and to burn the rafters than to buy firewood.
At this point, who could bring a copyright claim? Well, considering the massive AI training effort hoovering everything up, seems it might be approximately everyone.
Who would they be making the claim against? Well, considering the massive uptake of AI across the tech industry & beyond... approximately everyone.
Yes, the model companies are in the middle, but it's getting to the point where it seems a bit doubtful that claims will have any significant outcomes.
NYT might be able to get OpenAI to pay them for their content, but that's more of a financial tweak than a up-ending of industry.
Feels like those kinds of terms are moot in the big picture. Could they enforce it? Perhaps they can if a significant amount of the data produced is their IP, but who would they enforce it against? Consumers? Not much to be gained by going after them.
I can only think that they are hoping businesses might use the free plan and that they can sell them paid plans as part of an enforcement effort, but it doesn't seem like a very sustainable approach given the industry standard is to not claim ownership.
Brazilian electoral law tries to ensure all candidates have equitable access to media air time prior to the election. This filtering apparently exists to prevent distortions like X itself pushing candidates.
But incumbents have a natural advantage, right? So any type of control trying to ensure similar levels of access is clearly going to be to the advantage of incumbents.
You seem to be baking-in the assumption that extreme precision is what can make the difference when driving a car, but I put to you that the vast, vast majority of human-at-fault accidents are not due to the precision being slightly off.
It will be logic and driving behavior that makes the difference between Waymo/Tesla/others rather than whether the perception accuracy is micron level or not.
Possibly. Telephone (电话) is electricity/electronic (电) + talking/speech (话).
In Japanese there's the Japanese possessive ('no') which can also be a modifier/qualifier in text like 男の子 (boy, literally "man of child") and 女の子 (girl, literally "woman of child"), so there are sequences of Chinese characters (possibly in combination with Japanese) that could be a single token like character sequences in the Latin script.
I've been contemplating that recently. You're of course correct that subsidized tokens won't be forever, but that might only be half the story, since there's two opposing forces in action:
1. Phasing out of subsidized tokens.
2. Token prices being brought down through scaling, better hardware, etc.
It's possible that these might balance each other out sufficiently that token customers won't notice any substantial increase in price.
What if the CEO of that one will come along and notice all the fat stacks of money he's leaving on the table by not advertising to all of those rich contrarians?
In this case it seems like a bit of coaching could have retained a talented employee who has a preference for taking initiative.
I have a hunch that the order of the day within big tech is to let go of anyone they can. As long as they provide a reason, it's one less headcount that needs to be laid off in the next round.
reply