That’s just most heart rate monitors. Often it isn’t enough conductivity (add water before activity) or the battery is low

This is an article written by a company/llm trying to justify huge increases to the pricing structure.

Oh! Yknow that thing we were charging you $200 a month for now? We're going to start charging you for the value we provide, and it will now be $5,000 a month.

Meanwhile, the metrics for "value" are completely gamed.

The price will be what you are willing to pay. No justification required, excepting for fairness (info asymmetry and what else?). It is written by me. Unfunded bootstrapped !!call it dire straits.

> Meanwhile, the metrics for "value" are completely gamed.

Well, of course. One of the huge advantages of agents is that they will actually help you to almost any extent game metrics.

Unlike people, who have ...

:)

At the same time, I actually wouldn’t mind a world in which AI agents cost $5000 a month if that’s what companies want to charge.

I feel like at some level that would remove the possibility of making a “just as good as humans but basically free” arguments and move discussion in the direction that feels more productive: discussing real benefits and shortcomings of both. Eg, loss of context with agents vs HR costs with humans, etc…

Teachers salaries were never super amazing. Experienced teachers probably could, but it did take a good 10-15 years to get there.

> Covid has a mortality rate under 1%.

I hate it when blanket statements like this creep in.

Which Covid? The initial version was definitely more deadly than later versions.

What about future covids? Are you willing to guarantee every version of covid from here on out will be less deadly? It is the general case to be true, but it is not some sort of law.

Babies have strong legs in order to push themselves out of the womb

This was indeed a wrong statement - I was pretty sure I had read something along these lines, but I checked it out after writing this and no, it's not the case.

whoa, two weeks

@apwell23 while the author didn’t say how s/he measured QA, creating the QA process was literally the first bullet.

People don't want AI passively lurking in the background extracting behavioral data yet this is the model they are aiming for, or at least gravitating towards repeatedly.

I also don't need / don't want it's manipulative presence around.

Not to be paranoid, but it's not just about browsers, that's just the most convenient place we've gotten started with this sort of mass surveillance (and control) architecture.

> People don't want AI passively lurking in the background extracting behavioral data yet this is the model they are aiming for, or at least gravitating towards repeatedly.

Is there any evidence Mozilla has plans to do this? As far as I know, there's only two companies doing what you describe: Microsoft and Meta. Microsoft being the most invasive (and evil) by a huge amount—because it's at the OS level.

Yes, the article is about Mozilla, yes I was sloppy in expanding the scope without saying as much.

Microsoft is definitely the most overt in all of this, but Google is working on built in WebAPIs[1], Opera has integrations (sidebars too), Brace includes Leo, and then of course there are the "AI first" companies like Perplexity, Arc etc...

The problem is often that almost all browser features lurk in the background without you really knowing whether they are active or what their scope really ends up being. Cookies, javascript, and various other aspects of the reality of using the web have been abused for mass tracking (and surveillance)

So what's this got to do with Mozilla? Unless Mozilla is encouraging the use of local models, they are just encouraging the development of the same technology that has gotten us into this trouble in the first place. Maybe they should continue the work that meta started -- support development/use of open models of AI and guarantee the AI feature will be completely sandboxed in useful ways.

[1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/built-in

Vaccination rates in immigrant populations is lower than native born children, but not significantly. As you noted in your link, they're generally willing to get vaccines, but many didn't have access before they immigrated.

Also, the current outbreak was incubated in Mennonite communities before spreading wider. Despite living in Canada for over 100 years Mennonites are still considered immigrants by many because they are insular and different.

In other words, it's a racist talking point that has enough truth to make it non-trivial to challenge, but has no actual basis.

Canada has a mandatory immigrant medical exam for anybody applying for permanent residence or a visa of longer than 6 months. At this exam, the doctor will ask for vaccination records and prescribe missing vaccinations. It is unlikely that immigrants are contributing to this outbreak.

The Mennonites in Canada aren't actual immigrants and are not subject to this mandatory exam.

But you can make more money. And if you don't, then it's crime against the fiduciary.

I'm not sure if this is a tongue in cheek comment or not, but it's a myth that leadership has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits at all costs.

Exactly, you're on the hook to profit-max for the next quarterly earnings report. If that may negatively impact subsequent quarters, not your problems, that's to be resolved when profit-maxing those quarters

No, you're not "on the hook". You're definitely motivated to increase profits - most senior leadership's compensation will be heavily equity weighted, and net profit growth tends to result in share price growth - but there's no hard rule saying they have to purse short term profits at all costs. They might be pressured to by shareholders but they're not obligated to.

Consider companies like Amazon, Tesla, who (initially, for many years) prioritised long term growth over short term profits. Look at how long they lost money for. You do need a CEO who actually has some vision.

One might argue sacrificing long term gain and stability for short term term profits are indeed a violation of fiduciary responsibility. Why it isn’t being argued I don’t know but we all know delaying gratification tends to result in higher net in the long run.

short termism!