- Search ad pricing is inelastic and auction based (supply goes down price goes up).
- A jump in traffic to DuckDuckGo does not mean Google is experiencing a decline in search volume. Number of queries per session has increased since launching AI Overviews.
> Search ad pricing is inelastic and auction based (supply goes down price goes up).
False. Advertisers have budgets and ROI targets. If Google cannot compete people will get their clicks elsewhere.
> A jump in traffic to DuckDuckGo does not mean Google is experiencing a decline in search volume. Number of queries per session has increased since launching AI Overviews.
But it does produce lower ROI for advertisers (in this case: CTR goes down because my ad is being shown to more people). Once user is on my landing page, my conversion rate is fine month on month (±1%), but my CTR on google got sharply worse by 5% since, and if it goes much further I'll stop completely on Google.
I doubt I am alone: Maybe others will jump ship sooner and the price will recover (demand goes down) but in either event Google is less net revenue, and given how aggressive their sales pushes have been I think it could be that big
Luxury car makers should look to handbags for inspiration. If Ferrari wants to expand the market and reach new customers they shouldn't be making something that looks like an upbadged BYD.
It's like if Hermes started making a Jansport backpack, absurd. Instead they sell lower cost, but still premium designs like the Picotin. The Lamborghini Urus might be one example.
Just because we don't understand or know about compilers or able to read their output does not make them fungible.
In old days we chose between Turbo/Borland C, Quick C and GCC. We didn't think them same or trust blindly even if we didn't know how they worked.
The best developers hand optimized assembly for sub routines which they knew compilers were not good at, the rest of us sure didn't understand how any of it worked, but nonetheless felt the differences and chose with dollars and usage .
Part of what I’m getting at is exactly your point that we used to think about what compiler to use and didn’t always blindly trust them.
If you have enough tests at what point does AI rewriting software in a different language become close enough to ‘deterministic’? Maybe never, maybe not.
This is pretty common across social media as well, surveyed sentiment towards it often negative while usage is high. I suspect it's because of the addictive quality.
But sentiment toward YouTube isn't negative. It is the most reputable social media in Morning Consult's brand reputation survey. It enjoys a higher reputation score than things like Cheerios and Tylenol. I don't think you can separate the reputation of the platform from the collective impression left by the creators, and people like the creators on YouTube. And, I propose, people largely DGAF about the platform features and presentation.
I think it's a very common misconception among programmers that the law is a sort of natural language 'program' where you can consistently deduce that x input generate y output.
It sort of is, except that the entire law isn't defined in one place. "Hey, do I have a home office?" Well, "home" is defined over in this regulation, and "home office" is defined over there in that other regulation, and "having a home office" would normally mean this except for this case law that says it can also mean that when these other circumstances apply, and...
These things are knowable, but unless you've spent some time studying it intensely, it's certain that you only know a fraction of the places where the program is written.
If it's helpful, programmers should imagine that it's written in C. At a glance you can tell what something's doing, but once you study it you can find UB all over the place and suddenly it's hard to say what the right answer is until you know the intricacies of the compiler and the target platform. You can't really determine the exact behavior without all that information that lives outside the code. Now, once you have all that, you can surely reason through it all. But how many people actually know all that, or even realize which parts they don't know?
"This is pretty straightforward" is a sure sign of someone who doesn't actually understand it well.
Trying to treat law as code-in-English-form is going to lead you horribly astray, however.
The behavior of C code is something that we can, in principle, reduce to semantics in a formal model we know how to describe the behavior of. Now, there's some issues getting there--the specification is more ambiguous than we'd like, and there's definitely certain behaviors that are very challenging to incorporate in a formal model (say, signal handlers). But even something like UB is something that we have good, well-understand models of what exactly it means to hit UB. At the end of the day, whether or not C code is correct, whether or not the compiler is correctly compiling the C code, is a question that has a clearly objective answer.
Law doesn't work like that. Laws are written and interpreted with the understanding that there is flexibility in the mater. If you compute the law and get an absurd result, then people are going to shrug and throw out the absurd result; rather different it is to a compiler where the absurdity is accepted as correct. As a result, there's not really an objective answer to whether or not something is legal, to understanding what will happen in a legal case, like there is to code.
This is partly because the law predates compilers and modern communication. Why should a crime get different sentences? Often because judges are humans and somehow that makes it okay to lock some people up for years longer than others.
No it isn't, at least not in common law systems like the US. It is part of the principle of how statutes are drafted that they will be interpreted by human judges and shaped by precedent. It's not a technological limitation.
Your example is somewhat apropos because one of the more algorithmic portions of law is sentencing. Since the 1980s (i.e., after the development of compilers!), the US has enacted guidelines for sentencing (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentenci...) that allows anyone to read the criminal complaint and compute the expected sentence via a calculator (e.g., https://www.sentencing.us/).
And yet the sentencing guidelines are not binding on outcomes, in part because of the necessary flexibility in law. Sometimes you crunch the numbers and you get absurd results (SBF's fraud conviction is a good example I ran through myself), and so you need the flexibility to throw the algorithm out when the algorithm produces wrong results.
> except that the entire law isn't defined in one place
> These things are knowable
There are absolutely undefined, unknowable areas of law that are waiting on future SCOTUS decisions to be defined.
Heck, we can’t even rely on past SCOTUS decisions.
Even in extremely well-defined law like whether LEO’s have valid PC to search someone during a traffic stop, two different judges in the same district will disagree and appeals courts / state supreme courts can rule quite inconsistently.
That’s by definition not just undefined behavior but also non-deterministic results.
I agree. I just mean, you can pretty well know today's state, at least hypothetically. But you better be watching tomorrow's legal news to see if anything important changed.
Someone has to be in the news first, and then you learn about it. To that someone, the change you see in tomorrow's legal news is today, was yesterday. It's more a gamble than you think, you just don't feel it until it bites you.
FWIW, we're in complete agreement. I stand by mt original statement that these things are nearly impossible for a layperson to be competent in. It's hard enough for people who do it every day for a living. An equivalent would be non-techies saying "I'm not going to pay a software engineer. Just tell the computer what you want it to do!" And that might sound reasonable to other non-techies, while you and I roll our eyes and laugh. I'm sure CPAs and tax attorneys and the like think the same when they hear engineers talk about filing their own non-trivial taxes.
Well, to put it precisely, an omniscient being would theoretically be capable of knowing today's state of the law with probabilities assigned to the results.
I'm serious. Pick any non-trivial issues of law, ask a world leading expert, and you'd very quickly hear the word "probably" somewhere. Less often than "it depends", but you'll hear those words often nonetheless.
If that's "knowable" to you, I guess it's knowable.
When some countries tell them 'You need to make sure the product is safe for children', or 'you can't let people under 16 on the platform' Meta stomps their feet, says it's impossible and/or bad for society and spends millions on campaigns to influence the public against the govt's position. In some cases going as far as threatening to leave the country.
>Our membership is made up of advocates, service providers, individuals and experts, speaking with a united voice to promote and realise the rights of Australian children.
>The Child Rights Taskforce is co-convened by UNICEF Australia and James McDougall and is led by a Steering Committee of child rights organisations and experts.
but uh here I am on a social media site rebroadcasting that message... I'll add that I'm for an open internet, I don't think we need age verification. Walled gardens have a lot more shade then alternatives. Becoming aware of the many forms of abstracted gambling (time, tokens, or otherwise) makes the internet a much more affordable and sane place.
reply