309 karma · joined May 8, 2015
Apps can subscribe to updates from other apps so a photos app could aggregate media from across the workspace, and also platform-wide actions like a custom right click menu that pipes into specific app functionalities.
Even if I’m in support of the subject matter (how many hours apple bugs waste for example), I think it’s generally in bad taste to be wasting the time of everyone on HN by fooling people with a website that’s meant to imitate something thought invoking.
Most of these larger players are interested in supporting anything that helps grow the ecosystem so broadly.
Pennsylvania is filled with old coal mining towns, and most of them are in a state of decay. Towns like Pottsville, Pennsylvania have buildings crumbling down on their main streets.
If anything, I think Centralia is representative of where these other towns could be in 50 to 100 years, assuming people move to larger communities. Barring the fire under the ground, of course.
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/bpa-and-bps-in-...
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/bpa-and-bps-in-...
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/bpa-and-bps-in-...
That said it’s become clear to me that even different profiles on my phone don’t solve the problem of distraction In the same way that putting my phone in another room/using a different device does.
To speculate a bit: if I were able to use generative UI To customize the experience on my phone, I could enable useful tools like posting to social media, while disabling distracting features like scrolling through the newsfeed. In this way, I could separate my consumption and creation time for more than I can now.
Though it's good to focus some % of our attention on alternatives, and I'd feel more comfortable going to space on a balloon instead of a rocket.
Fantastic game, highly replayable.
I’ve not been heavily committed, so I’ve only really “won” about 2-3 times total.
Similar to local coffee shops charging more because they can’t afford bulk orders for 20mil cups.
- Use a custom prompt to rank (0-10) comments based on intent/subject matter.
- Filter out low ranking comments
- See only comments that are positive, constructive, thought-provoking, etc.
- Keep conversations on topic and filter out insults/off topic messages.
- Set defaults for your profile, or per post.
- Creators could set autoreplies powered by GPT based off of template statements.
- Pro: extend personal boundaries and filters into your comments section more effectively.
- Con: could increase echo chamber
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
USER Today is November 1 what day is 140 days from now?
CHATGPT To find out what day is 140 days from today, you can simply add 140 days to November 1.
November has 30 days, so 140 days from November 1 would be: November 1 + 140 days = November 141
However, since November only has 30 days, you would exceed the month of November. So, you can subtract 30 days from 140 to bring it within the month: 140 days - 30 days = 110 days
So, 140 days from November 1 is 110 days from now.
We’re building agents that are a little bit less autonomous than what is popular right now, mostly using them as chat bots that can interface with a workspace or chained into a type of workflow. Basically everything in our workspace will be accessible to the agents.
That said, it's going to be very interesting to see if one AI Agent platform becomes the standard, or if people end up having different AIs for different platforms.
On our end at least, we are planning to keep our agent builder, even if we end up using OpenAI on the backend. At the very least we will at least maintain the agency to utilize another platform if we want.
For the past few months, I've been marking videos as "not interested" because they are AI-generated, and I can tell.
But the flip side is that as these tools become more prevalent, it's not immediately clear to me how this line will be defined.
If people are using AI to generate scripts but are still reading them, does that count? Or if they're using AI to generate the images but have written the script, does that count?
It just seems messy, but I'm glad they're taking at least an active approach to it. I also think it will be a sign of how Google as a whole will treat AI generated content over time.
A third-party that used to pay for streams of my music, has decided to, instead change their terms, and use my music to generate more revenue (which in this case they are using to pay other artists, which is very strategic of them, because now they don’t have to pay those other artists more from their own pockets).
I negotiated with my distributor, distrokid, And paid to have my music distributed to services that pay for streams of my songs.
Suddenly one of these services altered their terms to the above.
And just to clarify, I’m not trying to be difficult. The fact of the matter is that my content has been taken by a third-party, and instead of paying out based off of an agreement, they have decided to take money from the content, creator, and instead use it to pay other artists (it is my strong suspicion that they did in order to not have to pay for transactions, even though this was all part of the arrangement from the beginning).
They have effectively saved themselves $40 million and more popular artists feel better because they are making more money, and the only people that lose out are people that have no real leverage in the situations.
I completely agree three dollars is very little money and is pretty insignificant. But it doesn’t change the fact that this was very strategic and the money that is generated is coming from creators, who have paid to have their content hosted, in exchange for money generation.
If you remember how big of a deal limewire was, this is a similar situation for songs under 1000 streams per year. It is distribution of music, without the consent of the artist, and worse off the platform is monetizing it and the artist does not get that money.
This is a very different situation than something like YouTube ad sense paying out after 1000 views, given that a content creator directly uploads content to YouTube and agrees to their terms.
I think it's likely they kept this number very low specifically to keep people arguing about whether or not the amount was important, versus if it was OK to be doing in the first place.
When streaming became an option, music distribution platforms that appeal to a lower barrier of entry became more popular.
If the industry were refreshed today, it would make more sense to directly upload content directly to the streaming platform, like Apple Music or Spotify, just like we do with social networks.
Unfortunately, this put Spotify in a weird position because while they are a distributor, they are a secondary distributor. Unlike YouTube, or other platforms that directly host the content. (yes, I know they're hosting the audio files, but they are still secondary, because distro kid is primary).
Again, I pay for distro kid, everyone who uploads music to platforms, pays their distributor. So unfortunately, it's more complex than monetization and ownership rates around content on YouTube or something like that.
I pay a distributor (distrokid) to send out music, and do not have a direct agreement with Spotify. As far as I'm concerned, monetizing my music without my consent is theft.
Their argument is that the stream amount is so low it ends up not being worth the transaction. On a moral level, I'd argue that it's their responsibility to pay out the money generated even if it costs them money to do so for a small number of streams.
This is estimated to generate $40m annually for them (which they've said they will be distributing to other artists instead), which isn't deeply significant, but this is money that is only generated because of small content creators that have uploaded their content to their distributor (which they pay for) which then distributes to spotify.
If I were to upload directly to Spotify for free, I'd consider the terms different, because I'd expect distribution as the exchange in the relationship. But in this case I pay a distributor, who then sends to spotify, who then decides to offer my content for free and pocket the money. Not acceptable for me.
(note: I consider this relevant to the original article because it is mentioned, as well as because it is one of the variables involved in music purchasing/accessing)
edit: corrected the $40m statement to show where money was going.