archildress

Common topic amongst friends on online advertising: feels like it would be reasonable for platforms like Meta, TikTok, etc to explain why they've served you the ad you're seeing. Imagine an "explain why I'm seeing this" button.

The adtech of today feels very opaque to me; I often have no clue why I see what I do. If platforms had to disclose why you're seeing what you are, you could plug the holes in your privacy. (Fully aware this will never happen, but it's the type of regulation I wish we were proactive about.)

Our regulatory framework is so asleep at the wheel. It is as if there is this unpierceable veil if you operate as a corporate entity, as if multiple people's combined transgressions are less than a single person doing it.

From my view, as soon as they do that, they send people out the door to use Opencode instead - and once many people have a taste of trying every model via Openrouter, it's eye opening as to the possibilities.

Of course - Anthropic and OpenAI have an advantage in the amount they can subsidize the usage, but I think those days are waning.

Nice tool - would love it if I could press a number on the keyboard to select and rapidly move through them.

Sure seems like all this fancy Copilot coding help they have would've helped develop a better email client.

Anyone else immediately think of this commercial?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbKsC4GCT5k

*Since blue is the shortest wave length...*

I just feel extremely sad about the mass quantity of events like this happening right now because they are all aggregate to huge negative effects but the average person knows nothing of it. It feels so unfixable.

I hope all the self proclaimed tech libertarians in the audience who hate so called "cancel culture" loved a little laugh at their expense. :)

Roughly equivalent to "all news networks are biased", overlooking the "but not to equivalent degrees."

Headline ought to be re-written as "Supreme Court forced to codify once-unwritten rules due to rampant abuse by Justice Thomas."

I really can't make clear enough how good Kagi is. I've tried all the competing emerging search engines as they've had their 5 minutes of fame. They don't compare to kagi. it's the first google rip and replace I've ever tried. Pony up the $10 a month and put your money where your mouth is on "let's pay for products instead of being sold to advertisers."

Just-in-time will cost you far more than it will save you. The problem is that when it fails, you judge those failures as "backwards looking one offs" as opposed to a cost that is part and parcel to being JIT.

Factory downtime is the single biggest cost a manufacturing shop can incur. No amount of working capital savings from carrying fewer screws, widgets, and bolts can offset the costs of taking 14 plants down due to penny wise, pound foolish math.

Can't wait for the courageous design decision to then remove numbers from the follow-up release for more simplicity.

I've thought about this many times, and my answer is: when there is a massive, at-scale leak of seriously disruptive personal information. Think Google search history, medical files, or databases of credit card transactions. When it takes enough peoples' lives off the normal track, people will finally be fed up.

Yeah, it's not a super steep discount; I wound up getting $235 for it. Sales tax would've been about another $30 here so it was about $100 off sticker price with probably 10 hours of play.

Sold my barely used Quest 2 a few weeks ago and had a real hard time getting even $235 for it.

I can't say enough good things about Kagi Search. I dropped it in as my Google replacement a couple of months ago and don't want to go back.

https://kagi.com/search

Oof, this is a very antiquated idea of a CFO's involvement. I've worked for a few and more often than not, they're on the front line with every decision.

All planning really is based on assumptions, like safety stock levels. In organizations you typically have someone who decides "hey, this is the right level of inventory to keep, based on our demand right now." That's not a bad approach, but the problem is a lot of supply chain planning is top-down and dictates "we only want to keep $x tied up in inventory" and as you can imagine that number is driven by management as low as possible. When COVID happened last year, levels were slashed so low and now the supply chains can't recover.

Basically my view is that it's this over reactiveness and obsession with free cash flow has swung so far so as to create a too-painful jam.

I would agree that over consumption is a problem, albeit a separate one to the conversation at hand.

Cheers.

It’s almost as if there are happy mediums in between the two scenarios. :)

Thank you Toyota and practitioners of "lean" / "Six Sigma" that told us all about the wonders of just-in-time, to only carry exactly as much inventory was needed for demand. After all, we'd rather have that cash in a bank account than tied up in inventory.

While well intentioned, the problem is that it all relies on assumptions, largely tied to demand. And when demand goes through a wild whipsaw, and everyone takes diverging viewpoints of the shape of that whipsaw curve, the highly interdependent chain snaps.

Labor is an issue for sure. But make no mistake, the "restart from COVID" supply chain conundrum owes a lot of its pain to optimizing everything to the hilt, then reacting slowly as the world around us changed.

Could be Titanium Dioxide that is involved in whitening. Have seen enough from my view that this would be my guess. And what could be more basic than that. :)

There's plenty of competition - note that despite capturing 75% of profits, Apple accounted for only 13% of units shipped.

I'm sorry but your analogy just doesn't work.

If you're de-platformed from YouTube, Facebook, etc, you can still publish your content and share it. You have a distribution issue, you don't have an "ability to perform" issue.

If you're locked out of the banking system, your business is done. You lack transactional alternatives.

There are compelling alternatives for many of the platforms you mention; what was happening to OF amounted to a complete disqualification from infrastructure.

Again, my original comment is merely a criticism of credit score and not the entire consumer lending infrastructure. Three credit bureaus purport to have a comprehensive opinion of someone's credit worthiness without considering their income and that's broken, full-stop.

I didn't bring EBITDA into the conversation; free cash flow is a useful metric for both personal finance and corporate finance and isn't comparable. EBITDA is too adjusted to be useful for personal financials.

Just to be clear, my criticism is of the credit score metric, which I feel is disproportionately depended upon for credit worthiness. A credit score does not take into account income.

In reply to your first point, the original article discusses credit score, which does not use income in any way. You're talking about applying for loans, which use a credit score and other factors to determine credit worthiness. My points are relevant to the credit score only.

Consider the fact that conflating credit score to credit worthiness (respectfully, as your reply does) as the biggest indicator of the brokenness.

On larger loans, sure. But the credit score metric that is the first indicator does not inherently use income. You self report with no verification whatsoever.