The social commentary i’ve read is that some fast trends are made and followed by the “top trend makers”. Then they fade out in those circles, and dwindle to “common people”. But at that point, it’s not really cool or status symbol.
The way I understood is, if you’re hyper-online and very consumerist, you’ll want to onto the train fast, and get off it fast so you would be deemed as a “trend maker” rather than “trend follower”. I’m not sure if I’m making sense, but it’s a bit more visible within Tokyo/Shanghai subcultures. It was less visible to me in Vancouver, where there’s a single main culture (everything outdoor and outdoor related) and not participating is also “not cool”.
Isn't that the whole idea of hipsters? They existed far before online culture. And not much different to how teenagers have always rebelled against the traditional culture.
Not sure how you could make sense when the topic it self is nonsensical?? Trying to rationalize internet fads just seems as futile as getting involved with the fad itself.
It kinda makes sense if you talk to people who is "in the game". I know some people who do trend-chasing with their own friends, and find it fun. Not my thing, but who am I to judge some harmless consumeristic fun?
What is trend-chasing? I genuinely have no idea… is it getting onto something early and hoping it catches on so you were early? How could one even do that in an age where everything is being manipulated by algos and bot farms to make it appear that way?
Kinda. It's like like an in-group status signaling that "i discovered this before it became popular". As mentioned above, some sort of being a "hipster", but with fast-changing trends. To my understanding, it's done less consciously. Think of "oh, there's a new restaurant in town, we should check it out" idea, and people standing in a line waiting to be one of the first "to taste it".
Part of it might be the influencer culture. Which some people fall under. Be the first to have this cool thing (Labubu) or present it visibly Dubai Chocolate, could drive some engagement and thus money or clout.
I think this might also fall lower in hierarchy, just being seen as early for your friend circle.
Feels like there's a contradiction in a piece that claims a fad is definitively over while simultaneously asserting the unknowability of our fragmented Internet culture.
Everything's decentralized, but at the same time, I have my finger on the pulse.
They have just started showing up in stores around me. I can believe they have fallen off social media feeds while still growing in sales silently as people get them to put on bags or gift rather than post on tiktok.
My 7 year old son just recently got a few keychain ones as birthday party favors bag gifts. Basically one of the lowest form of toy for fashion, but very good for consistency in sales. He’s also rolling his eyes at anything “6 7” related after a month or two of leaning in hard on it, the parents ruined that one I think.
I only know of them from South Park episode, and thankfully I haven't seen any of those live, maybe they will fade completely before they reach my country coz they frankly are just ugly
"At no cost to Google" seems difficult to substantiate, given that multiple sources indicate that Google is sponsoring FFmpeg both with engineering resources (for codec development) and cold hard cash (delivered to the FFmpeg core team via their consulting outfit[1]).
This is excellent, to be clear. But it's not compatible with the yarn currently being spun of a purely extractive relationship.
Yes, according to the license selected by ffmpeg. And google, according to this license selected by ffmpeg, paid them nothing. And then do some additional work, beneficial to ffmpeg.
It is kind of funny, that we seek meaning and/or purpose in everything - our lives, our actions, our thoughts - but there is a nice change in perspective in considering it as something that we produce rather than find.
Humans are evolved creatures that are very resilient across environments.
Any species that has this trait must not get stuck in local maximums, at an extreme that's why the koala is just not a resilient species, over confidence.
We are an anti-niche species, to avoid this we must have a certain percentage of our population that has doubt, existential crisis that shakes us out of a well worn path.
This always amazes me. If you deeply, emotionally _know_ that life has meaning, there will be some existential nights where you you will think "but maybe life doesn't have meaning", and if you _know_ life is meaningless you will sometime find yourself thinking "maybe there is meaning", our brains try to keep us from getting stuck.
Humility in the face of the unknown. As a species, just amazing stuff.
The cycle of confidence and doubt is absolutely amazing, it's kept us from getting stuck.
Keeps us from having "target fixation" and lawn darting into the ground.
Some individuals have these values tuned at extreme ends, the full distribution is represented by humanity.
The most overconfident and the most anxiety ridden, this is all in our spectrum, and it turns out better or worse for each individual.
The great thing is that we can share ideas and examine our priors.
I used to believe that "nothing" was a real thing, but it's only an abstraction, nothing has never been observed it's only "real" in our imaginations. There's no such thing as nothing as far as anyone has observed or proven.
Same thing with meaninglessness, nothing is meaningless, there are just bits of meaning maximally un-complex and decohered. You can use photon emissions from stars for RNG, humans have made even RNG have rich meaning and high practical utility.
Yeah, a typical advice trope is "Find things with meaning and do those" which isn't very useful once you understand we create meaning internally. Meaning is an individualized perception not an extrinsic property.
This gets tricky because our perceptions can be influenced by societal expectations of which things should be meaningful - as if it's an objective property. It's easy to think of activities to which many people would respond "Oh, that must be soooo meaningful" and yet it's entirely possible you may not personally experience a sense of meaning from doing them - yet feel like you're supposed to. It's important to realize there's nothing wrong with that (or with you). You may not experience the 'expected meaning' meaning while doing some "charitably noble activity" widely thought to be meaningful, yet discover something else few would associate with "meaningful" does evoke meaning for you.
> Yeah, a typical advice trope is "Find things with meaning and do those" which isn't very useful once you understand we create meaning internally. Meaning is an individualized perception not an extrinsic property.
Why does intrinsic meaning make this advice not useful? I have always understood this sort of advice to mean “do things that are meaningful to you”.
Sometimes, whats meaningful to an individual becomes cloudy (maybe not everyone gets this, but some do). Or they feel like they are interpreting it wrong or something because it isn't mapping to the cultural expectations and what we "should" find meaningful.
The obvious problem quadrant is if you work on something that has huge meaning to you personally, but no or negative use to most people. Meaning can have both intrinsic and extrinsic components.
Inevitably you have to compromise on what is the most meaningful thing to achieve some reasonably happy balance. How much compromise, how you internalize it to yourself, etc. you have to figure out.
This conversation is reminding me of one of the most formative books in my development: Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning". It explores this idea, that the strive to find meaning is the central defining force for humanity, set against the backdrop of brutal destruction of the holocaust.
The first comment claims that Anthropic "are having to quantise the models to keep up with demand", to which the parent comment agrees with "This can't be understated". So based on this discussion so far Anthropic has [1] great models, [2] models that used to be great but now aren't due to quantization, [3] models that used to be great but now aren't due to a bug, and [4] models that constantly feel like a "bait and switch".
This most definitely feels like people analyzing the output of a random process - at this point I am feeling like I'm losing my mind.
(As for the phrasing I was quoting the OP, who I believe took it in the spirit in which it was meant)
I am not sure why you are loosing your mind
Anthropic dynamically adjusts knobs based on capacity and load
Those knobs can be as simple as reducing usage limits to more advanced like switching to more optimized paths that have anything from more aggressive caching to using more optimized models etc. Bugs are a factor in quality of any service.
> Suggesting people are "out of their mind" is not really appropriate on this forum, especially so in this circumstance.
They were wrong, but not inappropriate. They re-used the "out of their mind" phrase from the parent comment to cheekily refer to the possibility of a cognitive bias.
I've worked with many people who directly stated that they went to grad school because they "didn't know what else to do". As well as several who couldn't get a job, so they went back to school.
It definitely isn't always for the love of academics.
