Targeted ads generally bring in 3x the revenue of generic ads. Personally speaking, I'd rather have 1/3rd the ads on a page and allow my data to be tracked. I don't mind my data being tracked, and I'd rather see ads for keyboards / mens clothes (what I buy) than diapers / ladies shoes (who knows what tomorrow holds, but this is not what I'm buying at the moment).
1. Targeted ads being more profitable has no relevance to the number of ads on the page. Advertisers will always try to maximize the number of ads and potential profits regardless of profitability.
2. Contextual ads are not targeted and would not be showing you adverts for diapers or ladies shoes- unless you are reading about diapers or ladies shoes.
Looks like this did really solid, with the exception of the paragraph directly below the quote. It hallucinated some filler there and bridge it with the next column.
By my eye it just bridge. I didn't see any filler. It went from "Code is a language" - above the quote and then to "in a garden by name." which was the top of the next column but missing the chicken subject.
There are a lot more of these Gemini 3 examples out on twitter right now.
After seeing them, I bought Google stock. What shocks me about its output is it actually feels like it's producing net new creative designs, not just regurgitated template output. Its extremely hard to design in code in a way that produces consistent, beautiful output, but it seems to be achieving it.
That combined with Google being the only one in the core model space that is fully vertically integrated with their own hardware makes me feel extremely bullish on their success in the AI race.
I agree, though the time to buy was 6 months ago when everyone hated the stock. I think it can still appreciate nicely in the coming 1-3 years, search isn't really going anywhere and their other pieces (Youtube, Cloud, A.I subscriptions) will do good. If this bull market continues 4 trillion market cap is reasonable.
They're going to have a hard time selling the M5 when compared to the M4 Pro. Geekbench for that chip is 3843/22332, which is slightly slower for single core but better for multi, but also has thunderbolt 5 instead of 4.
Fortunately they will be selling the M5 Pro against the M4 Pro (and more likely, their expectation is no one with the current Pro is going to upgrade for one generation) so it will be easier.
In almost all scenarios, a setup with this incentive structure will lead to massive adoption. It's too tempting, and with most jobs / political positions being short term (<5yrs) ones, people optimize for their time in that timeframe, not longer.
Boards will pursue stock buybacks (short term growth, long term may cause trouble if there's a downturn), banks will lend out subprime mortgages (hit your sales numbers in the short term, at the cost of long term risk), etc etc.
This situation is no different. There's money flowing in and there's less red tape since everyone is being pressured to allow it. It might work out in the long term, it might not, but it will 100% benefit those who push it in the short term. People will get promoted for driving a new data center, politicians can promote more jobs being added, everybody wins... for now.
The future economic aspect becomes irrelevant when the short term candy is sweet enough.
IBGYBG. “I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone”. Infamous email sign-off associated with the run-up to the Great Financial Crisis. Used by Wall Streeters asking analysts to inflate credit ratings for undeserving securities, backed by risky mortgages.
At least on the gaming side, this is happening verrrrry slowly. It's almost entirely driven by the Steam Deck, which has around a 30% market share for linux users running steam. Since last year linux usage is up a solid percentile, and windows is down a similar amount. OSX and Linux both are making slow but steady progress against Windows' market share.
I don't think there will ever be a year of the linux desktop, but there might be a decade of slow transition towards it.
What are your thoughts on James Earl Jones giving license for his voice after his passing for Disney to use for Darth Vader? Or Proximo having a final scene added in the movie Gladiator upon the passing of Oliver Reed during production?
I see both of these as entirely valid use cases, but I'd be curious to know where you stand on them / why you might think recreating the actors here would be detrimental.
I don't think it's a failure of design, but rather a symptom of too much functionality.
The original iPhone had ~30 features it had to make work in harmony with each other. The current version of iOS has thousands. Each additional feature is an increase in difficulty in making it feel harmonious, and it's beyond the remit of what a single designer with a single vision can handle. It's grown to a scope such that no single person can contain a mental map of every aspect of it at once.
Gotta strongly disagree on this. For example, I know there's a way to get to the app switching screen, which shows all of the apps in a grid. You just have to drag up from the bottom the right amount in order to get the grid to stay. Despite knowing this, I fail to do it half the times I try. I just can't figure out how much to "drag" up from the bottom. Too much or too little and it just doesn't work. So frustrating. And so many other similar examples.
In this case there is both time a distance limit to the gesture. If the gesture is too fast the switcher won’t appear even if the distance was long enough.
That said, personally I’ve always found the gesture navigation very intuitive.
I've done a lot of stage demos. I've done pre-recorded ones, I've done live ones.
I prefer live ones, by a significant margin, even for non-deterministic AI things. In general I find live ones better, but it does depend on your circumstance. It's worth asking yourself three questions when you're doing a demo:
What is the outcome when it goes great?
What is the outcome when it goes wrong?
What percentage of the time do each of those occur?
With a pre-recorded demo, when they go great it's usually a 9/10. Things are solid, but they aren't adaptive to the situation, which means you might have lost an opportunity to insert a quip from something that happened earlier. When they go wrong though, it's a 0/10. You've told people that you don't have enough faith in your product to show it live - why should they have faith in it?. Now you might say that the demo goes right 100% of the time(ish), but there's also a human element to it. Someone might play the demo early, someone might not act in time with the live demo, any of these can give away that it's pre-recorded. I'd put their success rate at 95%.
With a live demo, when they go great they're 10/10. You can adapt them, you can show it live, things react instantly instead of slightly-out-of-sync due to scripted content. It's incredible. When they go wrong, it's a 3/10. You've got egg on your face. People make fun of you after. But they know at that point that you ran a live demo. That does count for something. We know Zuck did that demo live. They do fail a bit more, especially in the age of AI. 10% failure rates are pretty good for live demos. To me though, the higher failure rate is worth it for the better PR if you do fail.
100% agree. It's not a BINARY choice though! I prefer to do the demo live, and if it fails, have a one-push switch over to a recording and quickly declare that live projects are a work in progress. I think this is ultimately how you show both strength of live demo preparation, but can humbly recover the show if the live version fails by switching to recorded.
But, NEVER TELL ME IT'S A LIVE DEMO WHEN ITS PRE-RECORDED. You will lose my business forever if I catch it.
I don't agree that a bad live demo is a 3/10. The recent demo showed me conclusively that the Meta Ray Bans are not at the quality level where I would buy them, especially not for $800. That's pretty much a 0/10 in my book. Since it was live usage, it's indicative of the real quality of the product.
That live demo, despite the failures, unexpectedly made Meta much more likable to me than (say) the sterile and cringy prerecorded Apple events, which are just completely off-putting.
Furthermore, look at how the prerecorded Apple Intelligence demo at WWDC 2024 turned out, where more than a year later we still don’t know if and when its most salient features will see the light of day. Whereas with the Meta demo, we can assume that they were reasonably confident it would work on stage, and the failure may really just be due to the flaky wifi at the venue.
IMO a perfect prerecorded demo would have to be shockingly good to get better than like a… B- for me. It’s just too easy to cut or reshoot the interaction to be perfect.
Targeted ads generally bring in 3x the revenue of generic ads. Personally speaking, I'd rather have 1/3rd the ads on a page and allow my data to be tracked. I don't mind my data being tracked, and I'd rather see ads for keyboards / mens clothes (what I buy) than diapers / ladies shoes (who knows what tomorrow holds, but this is not what I'm buying at the moment).