I'm in this weird space where I'm working for a company on behalf of my actual company. And the company I'm being farmed out to does not care for us because we are contractors in a sense. This resulted in us being brought on board without any training, any knowledge transfer, and guidance, and being told "get to work".
The result is when I ask people for information regarding the organization or code bases they come back to me with "ChatGPT said this", where ChatGPT is an internally hosted AI stack.
It's gotten to the point where I've given up and just have the internally hosted AI writing unit tests for me because their organization doesn't care about us, and as a result I just don't care about them.
The worst part is the tests seem to be reasonably working. Which is terrifying because I actually know the language or testing framework very well. I'm effectively working in a junior capacity without any training or guidance and my merge requests are getting pushed through.
It's going to be interesting seeing how these organizations that force AI in the workplaces age, because there are no longer experts in the code base. Only slop.
I just don't understand the fuss. Having run some models locally, there is some interesting phenomena going on there, but trying to troubleshoot why things go wrong within the confines of the model itself is... Well, for me at the moment at least, intractable. If I have to rely on something, and I can't troubleshoot or fix it... I'm not relying on it. Especially when the only thing these models really seem good at is burning watts, and massive token multiplication.
Do you know if there are food tracker apps that can incorporate a n emissions style tracker into food planning and eating? For example is it better to opt for imported sardines or for locally grown chicken? I imagine the answer varies.
Unfortunately they are. They're a former shell of what they were. I think they're changing their focus to lenses or something. Last I heard they're partnering with Google and it's absolute ass. The company is effectively dead and being carved out for parts by Google is my take.
It's a real bummer because they were the only company I was actually interested in seeing pursue Augmented Reality. Now it's literally the most evil companies Meta, Google, and Apple.
The 90s optimism of future tech is dead and all that's left is whatever this is.
Your sympathy is severely misplaced. Magic Leap was Theranos-sized fraud from the beginning: they never had the goods, put out a whole bunch of misleading hype to persuade consumers and gullible investors that they had the goods [0], and eventually it caught up to them. Good riddance.
I agree they hyped the product too much, but contrary to Theranos, they did ship two products that actually moved AR tech forward. They just weren't efficient enough and the product market fit wasn't there. Even Apple is failing at AR.
I’m referring to the fact that there is strong speculation that the Steam Deck(Mk 1 /LCD) SOC was originally commissioned by Magic Leap for their second generation unit, but when the first generation didn’t have whales leaping from the floor…
In the same sense that we also got [total surrealistic non sequitur] out of it -- no causal connection.
Cocaine addled money laundering sexist nepotistic bro culture deserves all the harshness it gets.
I dare you to waste 6:17 minutes of your life that you will never get back watching this, and tell me they didn't spend a huge chunk of their investor's money on cocaine.
The synthesis of imagination: Rony Abovitz and Magic Leap at TEDxSarasota:
>Surprises abound in this multimedia, surrealist talk/performance by Rony Abovitz and Magic Leap at TEDxSarasota. Rony is a recognized innovator and entrepreneur, having co-founded the pioneering robotics company, MAKO Surgical Corp, which was recognized by Deloitte as the #1 fastest growing tech company in North America in 2011. Part of TEDxSarasota's inaugural conference held on 12/12/12 with the theme "Creativity Matters" at the Historic Asolo Theatre in Sarasota, Florida.
Damn. I wish we could get the release of the 35mm colors in the way they look in the comparisons. The Aladdin one specifically looks so good! It makes me feel like we're missing out on so much from the era it was released.
I absolutely hate this. Great to the OP for amazing work, but I am so sad that we're living Black Mirror dog world instead of Star Trek equality world.
There needs to be a new word for when you're impressed, but so depressed at what is being achieved.
There's dozens of us. Dozens! Seriously though, having a lightweight text editor like Sublime that I use is an interesting comparison when I see people immediately reach for tools like VS Code. Especially my juniors.
The thing about VS Code is not that it's bad, it's just, like everything and the kitchen sink? Sublime Text just feels like a really nice tool bench that your craft for yourself.
I'm really happy to hear there are others out there.
(And yes, I totally bought the license, but never enter it in)
Even back when all the kids had C64s, most only knew enough about it to load up games from the tape drive. Personally I was intrigued by the built-in basic, and that got me started programming (and I absolutely loathed the mindless consoles like the Nintendo Entertainment System), but I was very much in the minority.
A half-hearted product launch of something even iPhone loyalists didn't buy because it costs 2 months' rent and has no real use case out of the box. Zero buzz online; even Apple appears to have forgotten it, seeding rumours instead of on-device LLMs to get the hype train going again.
The news of production cuts is probably the biggest indicator that this isn't the Apple we know.
What is your monetization model for your game? It might not be a huge issue if you know you'll get way more than $0.20 per user. If you were selling a game for $10, this is minor. If you're making a f2p game where there's no guaranteed income and most of your players will not spend a dime, it's a lot riskier. I'd worry about the install counts getting spoofed by angry players, but that seems like a bigger liability for Unity than developers.
It's per install not per user! If your user installs it 5 times over the course of 2 years it already eats 10% of the game gross revenue. And it just keeps going..
Hell yeah brother! It's our data, we should own it.
How come I can "buy" a movie on Amazon prime, but I can't download it to any device I want?
How come I can only stream on spotify and not purchase digital albums?
Our rights have eroded so quickly and so deeply that people forget one of the biggest selling points of the original iPods was carrying around YOUR music.
Everything is a subscription. You'll own nothing, and like it.
It's our data, it's our privacy. We should be able to own and control both.
Ironicly everything you’ve listed here is an example of companies expressing their rights to control their data. You don’t own music or movies, they aren’t your data.
Data rights are for data about you and your behavior. If you retained copyright over all the data you produce by existing, you would be on the same level as companies today
While your point is valid, we’ve had (maybe for lack of a feasible alternative, but still), for many decades, the option to purchase a physical copy of media that was under our sole control and available for as long as the media itself lasted. We still have these options, but there is a clear preference of companies to sell a “subscription”, where our access to the content can be removed due to reasons completely out of our control.
I can see a possible future where actually purchasing a permanent, non-revocable access to some content will not be an option anymore. When you consider the practices that some of these companies have, of “vaulting” content or removing access to it due to cost or tax reasons, I am not so much in favor of laws that protect their IP or copyright anymore. At least, not unconditionally.
The problem you talk about is real, for sure. But it is nothing to do with owning _your data._
Your problem is much more aligned with right to repair rather than data ownership/privacy efforts.
It’s important that people know what they’re advocating for and understand the fundamentals of what the problem is. Confusing this problem with another problem only muddies the conversation and gets nothing done.
You didn’t pay for the right to own those movies, you paid a small fee for a license to consume their data within the bounds of the contract they laid out.
No one here is trying to outlaw Copyright, which is the mechanism that lets companies do as OP says; limit you from downloading their data.
Data sovereignty is not at all related to streaming movies or music and this comment confuses people who are curious to what the effort really is about.
Copyright regulates distribution, not consumption. What people mean by "own" is to own a digital file of the content that can be viewed at any time, anywhere, as long as the onus on keeping backups/moving the file around is on the consumer.
If I share a private picture with you by showing you the image on my phone, do you now have a legal right to force me to give you a copy of that picture?
Legally speaking, unless you have a work-for-hire type contract with the artist, you don't have an ownership claim. You purchased a digital 'ticket' that lets you view the artwork according to someone else's terms and conditions.
Yikes. We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. We're trying for something different here.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
To be honest, I’m more and more going back to piracy for this exact reason. Most of the time, it’s the only option to truly own an unlocked sequence of bytes in a standard format.
It’s such a shame. I’d gladly pay for movies if they gave you some DRM free file but as afaik, this still doesn’t exists.
Digital media goods are more akin to buying tickets, rather than actual albums. We always had subscriptions for stuff like TV, so I don't know what the erosion is here. Even today, you have options for entertainment that don't involve a subscription.
Anyway, as far as s/w is concerned the problem is not subscriptions, I believe its the symptom. The root cause is the lack of a sustainable model to fund mainstream/retail software development. You can find small/medium businesses that don't sell subscriptions, but for e.g. there is no counter to companies like Adobe. Devs want to work for "successful" software companies with high-pay, perks and benefits, and all "successful" software companies sell subscriptions.
> Digital media goods are more akin to buying tickets, rather than actual albums. We always had subscriptions for stuff like TV, so I don't know what the erosion is here. Even today, you have options for entertainment that don't involve a subscription.
The point of contention is that people want to own digital files of the content they pay for. It's as simple as that. They don't want to be subject to any licensing terms besides the limits that are natively placed upon them by copyright law itself.
I agree about the contention, the counter point that I'm making is that nothing has changed or eroded. I believe that art works can have ownership claims, and that intellectual property is real.
Assuming a work-for-hire type contract, you own the stuff you paid someone to create. Then YOU can do whatever you want with it including licensing it or selling digital tickets or copying it to a thousand different devices or distributing it for free.
I don't think that people who complain about those things are saying IP isn't "real" or that they should get free media. Their (and my) point is that the practice of trying to put DRM (and licensing terms in general) into consumer products and IP goods that are meant to be experienced/viewed is a predatory and unethical practice. Copyright law allows for a balanced level of control over the works at issue, but the companies want more than that so they lock them behind contracts of dubious enforceability and essentially try to remove the rights consumers traditionally held over copies of media they purchased.
Whether they can legally do it is a currently pending issue (see Andino v. Apple) but the main point is that even if they could, it's still wrong.
>Whether they can legally do it is a currently pending issue (see Andino v. Apple) but the main point is that even if they could, it's still wrong.
This is incorrect. There is absolutely no question at all about the legality of copyright or of the rights afforded to the owner by it. This lawsuit is over the use of the word "buy" and about terms of service on a specific content platform.
>Their (and my) point is that the practice of trying to put DRM (and licensing terms in general) into consumer products and IP goods that are meant to be experienced/viewed is a predatory and unethical practice. Copyright law allows for a balanced level of control over the works at issue, but the companies want more than that so they lock them behind contracts of dubious enforceability and essentially try to remove the rights consumers traditionally held over copies of media they purchased.
Thankfully, there are tens of thousands of talented artists all over the world who will take your money and create artworks for you. This continues to be the case, so what rights of yours have been taken away; Its not clear to me.
> Thankfully, there are tens of thousands of talented artists all over the world who will take your money and create artworks for you. This continues to be the case, so what rights of yours have been taken away; Its not clear to me.
That does not negate the fact that most popular culture nowadays is locked behind DRM and terms that are on top of the normal copyright protection Congress devised for rightsholders.
According to most content and software production/distribution companies, people shouldn't even own individual copies, but licenses to those. This is even in the case where the average consumer would ordinarily see it as a purchase of a copy outright. There's a very clear line between a subscription service that provides access to movies on a time-limited basis in exchange for a monthly payment and a virtual store "selling" digital goods, using terminology on its UI that deceives consumers, such as "Buy" buttons.
I find owning a copy of something a bit rediculous. When I watch a film or listen to a song, I would be glad to pay a small fee for the entertainment, rather than paying for the full rights of the film or song, which could be a million times more expensive. Compare it to going to a theatre.
Owning a dvd, blue ray or cd does not bring joy, only more stuff that at some point in time would get thrashed.
As the owner of a collection of over 1K CDs and several hundred DVDs and Blu-ray, I find that your last sentence should be expressed as your opinion, not fact. Particularly because you started the paragraph with “I find”, and then switched to not using it.
First of all apologies. Indeed the I find should have been repeated. Also, people collect a lot of different things and I shouldn't be judgemental about other people's hobby's.
This comment isn’t related to what the article is talking about at all. They aren’t referring to data you’re “purchasing”, but data you’re generating.
You can still purchase physical media and do what you want with it, within reason. The cheaper option is to stream it, but you lose owning it forever as a compromise. This seems like an option most people enjoy having, due to the popularity of Netflix and Spotify.
I'm in this weird space where I'm working for a company on behalf of my actual company. And the company I'm being farmed out to does not care for us because we are contractors in a sense. This resulted in us being brought on board without any training, any knowledge transfer, and guidance, and being told "get to work".
The result is when I ask people for information regarding the organization or code bases they come back to me with "ChatGPT said this", where ChatGPT is an internally hosted AI stack.
It's gotten to the point where I've given up and just have the internally hosted AI writing unit tests for me because their organization doesn't care about us, and as a result I just don't care about them.
The worst part is the tests seem to be reasonably working. Which is terrifying because I actually know the language or testing framework very well. I'm effectively working in a junior capacity without any training or guidance and my merge requests are getting pushed through.
It's going to be interesting seeing how these organizations that force AI in the workplaces age, because there are no longer experts in the code base. Only slop.