I’d be really, really surprised if a bunch don’t bother doing anything. Maybe most.

I just noticed he also mentioned sponsored ads in Amazon results and etc, which are definitely worse than in YouTube/etc videos.

I’ve cut down buying from them quite a bit, but when using the Amazon app, or web without adblock, the sponsored results have made the shopping experience SIGNIFICANTLY worse in the last 6 months.

It used to be that you’d see one here and there, but the volume of “sponsored” results has gotten ridiculous, and the quality is awful. Half of the sponsored results I see - at best - are very specifically not what I searched for. Sometimes not even close.

It’s one of several reasons I hardly buy from them anymore.

Of all the ads being pushed on us, this type seems like the least egregious to me.

That didn’t last very long.

No…?

They already laid off a bunch.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dell-cuts-workers-sales-team-170000115.html

I guess not enough.

If Twitter reopens, I would bet 90% will go back, sadly.

What spacecraft do you think they built themselves, without big contractors doing mos5 of the work…?

Or, like, “there’s the bottom 10% of a traffic light in this one. Do I click that box? Ia that supposed to count?”

Which one?

I knew I shouldn’t have used the word “never”, although I was thinking that only “deleted” accounts would drop the total count. That’s also a good point.

But it still seems unlikely that there will be a LOT or cases where the total number drops by a proportionately large number, unless something really bad happens (or there’s some big initiative at some point to remove inactive or not accounts)

The more important stat - the one that people would be much more likely to be talking about seeing a “decline” in, in cases like this - is “active” users.

Is that total users, or active users?

Total users will never rarely decline.

Not with an example that simple and poor, no.

If you have done the minimum and at least set a type hint, or if your ide is smart enough to check what calls the function and what it passes, then it’ll be flagged.

One day for the Olympics would be a pretty mad rush at the moment

I don’t see what the difference would be in 10 years.

I don’t think 90% of people, especially “young people” would avoid doing this already. It’s already a major awareness/compliance issue, and not at all a “no shit sherlock” moment.

But what did you have in mind that will be different in 10 years? Paricularly for young people.

Man you and the other dude are trying way too hard to be outraged about something that doesn’t exist here.

This isn’t data that Google, etc claimed. The srudy is attempting to represent what they believe the financial coat to train these models would have been.

But this isn’t accounting, this is just the way the study calculated stuff.

I assume they’ve come up with some generic cost if someone was training each model using cloud compute.

Eeit: below comments confirm this, from the source.

They’ll comply with the law if there are consequences.

Has to be consequences first. Ones that actually matter. And are enforced swiftly. Like there were here.

New Google PayForAccess™