If only this meant the removal of the annoying tiles for games that show up in the app above everything else (often using up the entire screen) even though I’ve never tapped on them once.
I don’t want your games Netflix. I barely want your shows.
Probably the best idea I guess as long as you can set the TV up without Internet.
I’m pretty happy with Chromecast currently for its simplicity. I meant to try and replace the TV firmware so it’s more or less a dumb TV that just displays its inputs without having ads and other gimmicks.
The TV I currently have is Android OS but the built in Chromecast is noticeably lower quality. Not sure if it’s an older version or what.
Regardless, IMO the displays themselves outlast their software support, and I prefer to just plug in whatever the latest device.
I’ll also mention Android OS on my TV takes a full minute to “boot” and that itself makes me want to yeet it out the window.
My TV is probably going to kick the bucket in a year or two at most. Filtering “non smart TVs” on a site like BestBuy shows only commercial display options at this point.
Are there any well maintained projects out there that are able to replace the firmware on newer smart TVs to get rid of these features? I really just want a dumb display with an input for a Chromecast with CEC support (or similar device if Google decides to enshittify that platform with screensaver ads too).
This is giving me 1998 MS Publisher vibes and I’m here for it.
“Prompt engineering” must be the easiest job to replace with AI. You can simply ask an LLM to generate and refine prompts.
I’m not sure how true this perception is in more recent years. Many popular sites, with enormous traffic volumes that could drive digital impression ad revenue, are instead pushing subscriptions or other monetization models.
For instance, the New York Times makes — by far — more money on digital subscriptions than digital advertising. Digital advertising revenues are also declining for them.
Another example is Spotify, where ad revenue from their ad-supported tier did not cover their operational costs and now represents around only a tenth of their revenue compared to subscriptions.
The exceptions to this are generally search and social media sites, where the product for sale on these sites are the users themselves. They’re just advertising platforms, which of course make their money from digital advertising.
So I’d say one issue with digital advertising is that it often does not pay the bills for the site owner. Its value is tied to its ability to convert visitors to buyers, but it has to be ramped up to such an extreme level it instead only creates bad experiences.
I go through significant efforts to block digital advertising at multiple levels. Yet, I do not find it difficult to discover new things to buy (from both small and large businesses).
For myself, I suspect most of that is supported through online communities related to my interests and hobbies. Those purchases feel more informed and often more intentional too.
What if we just got rid of digital advertising altogether in the US? How many issues of privacy, health and personal finance would disappear or be greatly reduced?
It’s hard for me to imagine what that would look like or the downsides other than to the digital advertising industry itself.
It’s easy enough to disable or change the settings to exclude apps. Not that it should be enabled by default, but it is part of initial account setup too.
I remember when I was growing up
You can basically stop right there. You were young and naive, viewing the world through the rose colored glasses of youth.
The context is not the same. A snippet is incomplete and often lacking important details. It’s minimally tailored to your query unlike a response generated by an LLM. The obvious extension to this is conversational search, where clarification and additional detail still doesn’t require you to click on any sources; you simply ask follow up questions.
With Gemini?
Yes. How do you think the Gemini model understands language in the first place?
If it’s just that and links to the source, I think it’s OK.
No one will click on the source, which means the only visitor to your site is Googlebot.
What would be absolutely unacceptable is to use the web in general as training data for text and image generation.
This has already happened and continues to happen.
I assume these people are Trumpers.
That’s a pretty bad assumption.
My guess is they did testing but the build they tested was not the build released to customers. That could have been because of poor deployment and testing practices, or it could have been malicious.
Such software would be a juicy target for bad actors.
If an intern can release to prod without extensive testing there are bigger issues.
Given the scope of the potential impact, if anyone can release to prod and have that deploy to all customers without some form of a canary release strategy, then there are still issues.
“Up to 20%” is meaningless for a headline and is pure click bait. It could be any number between 0% and 20%. Or put another way, any number from no time at all to a horrifying more than an entire day per week.
Why not just state the average from what is probably a statistically irrelevant study and move on?
The account’s discovery raises questions on just how many bots are operating on X
I have yet to encounter an actual user of the platform X in the real world.
All circles are flat.