> Yeah I’m definitely not going to pay a subscription for a dashcam so that some company can profit off my data.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but suppose this:
A dashcam is continuously recording and collecting image data. You're not "doing" anything with that data, it's just there being recycled or thrown away.
So the argument is, essentially: "Fuck you, I'd rather nobody in the world benefit than someone make a penny off of it."
Why shouldn't I get my cut, then? Why do they get to double dip? The point of the dash cam is that the data is ephemeral unless it's actually needed because something exceptional happened.
So you pay $20/month to be able to earn some crypto-coins they generate out of thin air to be used for...
If they aren't paying the equivalent of whatever the government allows you to deduct for 'wear and tear' on your vehicle then you're basically just subsidizing their data collection.
I don't even have an opinion on this, you do you.
--edit--
Oh, I saw down thread they're primarily a fleet services company and that explains a bunch. $20/month per car probably makes sense if you're outfitting an entire fleet and integrate it with your wonky in-house drivers' app which is barely fit for purpose. Yeah, I'm not bitter...
All I really have an issue with is the claim you get compensated for the time and energy you, essentially, donate to the company. If that's what you want to do with your time then by all means...
It just seems like a weird business model to me, they sell a pimped-out dash cam (fair enough) and pay some tokens (or rely on your philosophical bent) so you're willing to turn over all your data so they can repackage and sell it. To give credit where credit is due, they seem to be completely transparent with this and if the people who participate don't care then why should I?
> I assumed all of the models were doing that, using at least Web Search tools.
Sometimes. The other week I was asking ChatGPT about the UK PM, and had to stop the generation early because it started ~"Prime Minister Rishi Sunak…"
The unreliability is also why techniques as simple as "ask 5 times and have it take a vote of its own answers" boost performance. Or "thinking" modes which are approximately just replacing the end token with "Wait." and continuing for ten rounds.
I've used a novel nootropic which is an adenosine antagonist (KW-6356) for long-lasting energy without dopaminergic stimulation. Something I found and which is commonly reported by other users is mood-enhancing properties:
The manufacturer doesn't make it clear why they axed it, but from my experience in med-tech I think this translates to "the FDA is going to balk at it"
Not to rain on their parade, but I do find it at least a little bit funny that Kotlin Multiplatform is JetBrains's prerogative and the app is Mac only, lol...
I tried it out with a relatively basic Medicinal Chem/Pharmacology question, asking for an interactive Structure-Activity-Relationship viewer:
> "Build an interactive app showing SAR for a congeneric series. Use simple beta-2 agonists (salbutamol -> formoterol -> salmeterol). Display the common phenethylamine scaffold with R-group positions highlighted, and let me toggle substituents to see how logP, receptor binding affinity, and duration of action change."
It did not quite get it right. It put a bunch of pieces together, but the interactivity/functionality didn't work and choice of visualization was poor for the domain:
"Most of us have the distinct pleasure of going throughout our lives bereft of the physical presence of those who rule over us. Were we peasants instead of spreadsheet jockeys, warehouse workers, and baristas, we would toil in our fields in the shadow of some overbearing castle from which the lord or his steward would ride down on his thunderous charger demanding our fealty and our tithes."
This is gutturally revolting to me. The insinuation here is that the average person is a passenger in their own lives, without free will.
You don't come out of the womb and someone puts a stamp on your head saying "Barista! Paperboy! Grocery bagger!"
Barring considerable physical/mental disabilities, or personal choices like deciding to have kid(s) that you're financially responsible for at a young age with no money, I'd make the argument that most people can become millionaires.
I find this as a reaction to the quoted passage (not to some hypothetical other passage, perhaps) so confusing that I can't wrap my head around it without categorizing it as the result of misreading. "Gutturally revolting"? But your objections hardly seem related to the text at all. To something you feel was suggested (a couple steps removed, and not necessarily) by it, or some expansion of it you're making, maybe, but to that text? I'm at a loss.
> I'd make the argument that most people can become millionaires.
Make the argument then. How do “most” people become millionaires if that requires owning businesses or getting high up in a company? Who works for them if the majority of people are at the top?
There are many more ways of making money, and the economy is not zero sum. And of course just because most could do it doesn't mean most will. Most of us can workout 3 times a week, that doesn't mean most of us do.
It’s not a zero sum game but I think maybe we’re using the term millionaires differently.
When I, and most people I presume, use millionaires in casual conversation the reference is to being wealthier than most of society. It’s not usually meant as precisely having at least a million dollars since inflation has made that not a lot of money already since the colloquial use of the term millionaires first came about.
If you mean literally having a million dollars than we can probably just wait 50 years and even the destitute will be able to scrounge around for that much change.
Probably much sooner than 50 years, but yeah. If you mean filthy rich I think that takes a combination of work skill and luck that's hard for most people to achieve.
That being said, you don't need to be filthy rich to live a good life. There's the perspective that it's all mindset of course, but barring that you don't need to be filthy rich to go see F1 races for example. I've been to some when I was nearly broke. Obviously no Grand Prix grandstands but it's still achievable for the average person.
I think a good deal of US adults will become nominal millionaires in their lives. The trick is to marry someone, own a house together, and contribute to 401ks.
It's a lower bar by the day. I expect by the time I'm, perhaps, retiring (which isn't even that far off), "millionaire" won't be enough qualification to tell if someone's comfortable in retirement, or mightily struggling. Especially if we just mean a net-worth millionaire.
> JSON functions to return nested results. The database itself contains no JSON; just a well-normalised data model. However, the queries return nested JSON in the format required by the application
Entirely valid usecase, since the client application is likely going to parse some cartesian product of tabular relationship data into "normalized" JSON array of objects anyways.
Generally, generating the JSON response directly for consumption in the DB is faster.
A dashcam is continuously recording and collecting image data. You're not "doing" anything with that data, it's just there being recycled or thrown away.
So the argument is, essentially: "Fuck you, I'd rather nobody in the world benefit than someone make a penny off of it."
reply