The Zune hardware was slick, particularly the solid state players. The music store worked great and their music licensing was so much better than Apple - $10 a month for unlimited streaming, unlimited downloads (rentals) to Zune devices and 10 free mo3 downloads to own.
Their only misstep was making one of their colorways poop brown! That and being too late to market with a phone that used the same design language
There was also the fact that Microsoft introduced it 3 months before Apple announced the product that would kill the iPod, leading with the HDD model (a direct competitor to what would become known as the iPod Classic line) when Apple’s real flagship was the iPod nano.
There was also the crap that was Windows Media Player 11 which I tried to like for about a month.
There was also the incompatibility with Microsoft’s own DRM ecosystem in PlaysForSure which was full of these subscription music services, some of which were quite popular with the kind of people that were inclined to buy a Zune: folks in Microsoft’s ecosystem that had passed up on using an iPod and used something from SanDisk, Creative, Toshiba or iRiver instead. This is because they wanted to replicate the entire iPod+iTunes model entirely.
The 2006 lineup of iPods was also particularly strong, and included the first aluminum iPod nano’s. When Microsoft announced and released the Zune, they were counter-programming against that, right into the Holiday season with a new brand that had no name ID, with a product that was just like the iPod, couldn’t play any of your music from iTunes or Rhapsody, but with… HD radio.
Name or color had nothing to do with it imho (I like the brown personally). It was all timing. They were entering a market with a well estaablished leader (iPod) that was nearly as good, as good, or better depending on who you ask. On top of it phones themselves were taking over the music player market at the same time, which is where Microsoft really dropped the ball.
I mean, iPhone is a really ridiculous name as well if you stop to think about it.
What does the end user do with the AI chat? It sounds like they can just use it to do searches of client information… which the existing site would already do.
For what it’s worth: yes, it’s not technically true, but the reason it’s sticking around is because it conveys a deeply felt (and actually true) sentiment that many many people have: the output of generative AI isn’t worth the input.
Well, it more demonstrates that people will quickly latch on to convenient lies that support what they want to be true, yet impede real discussion of the trade offs if they can’t even get the basic facts right.
I'm not saying it's "good", I'm just saying that it's worth a qualitative consideration of what it _means_ that this incorrect statement is so persistent beyond "not true, STFU"
Urgh, I know that it's a solid explanation but I hate the "it may not be true but it captures a truth that people feel" argument so much!
See also "instagram is spying on you through your microphone". It's not, but I've seen people argue that it's OK for people to believe that because it supports their general (accurate) sentiment that targeted ads are creepy.
> See also "instagram is spying on you through your microphone". It's not, but I've seen people argue that it's OK for people to believe that because it supports their general (accurate) sentiment that targeted ads are creepy.
I used to be sceptical of this claim but I have found it increasingly difficult to be sceptical after we found out last year that Facebook was exploiting flaws in Android in order to track your browsing history (bypassing the permissions and privilege separation model of Android)[1].
Given they have shown a proclivity to use device exploits to improve their tracking of users, is it really that unbelievable that they would try to figure out a way to use audio data? Does stock Android even show you when an app is using its microphone permission? (GrapheneOS does.) Is it really that unbelievable that they would try to do this if they could?
If they are using the microphone to target ads, show me the sales pitch that their ad sales people use to get customers to pay more for the benefits of that targeting.
I get your point, but can you point to a sales pitch which included "exploit security flaws in Android to improve tracking"? Probably not, but we know for a fact they did that.
Also, your own blog lists an leak from 2024 about a Facebook partner bragging about this ability[1]. You don't find the claim credible (and you might be right about that, I haven't looked into it), but I find it strange that you are asking for an example that your own website provides?
I have already experienced the benefits of sending this to several family members, and I'm thankful for the hard work you put into laying everything out so clearly
AI most definitely uses more water than a traditional full text search because it is much more computationally expensive.
The water figures are very overestimated, but the principle is true: using a super computer to do simple things uses more electricity, compute and therefore water than doing it in a traditional way.
I mean, think of it this way. If I built a web app that took HTTP requests and converted them into a YouTube video, then downloaded and decoded that video in software, and then served the request, you'd say "that's stupid - you're using 10,000x more compute than you need to".
It's a tool, and using the wrong tool for the wrong job is just wasteful. And, usually, overly complicated and frail. So it's only losses.
> modern left wing goals like unlimited mass immigration.
Ahh and there we are. It's the immigrant's fault. Once all those illegals are out the of the country we'll be great again - the world will once more bend to Queen Victoria's will and Bobby Charleston will again lift the world cup for England, it's rightful owners (hard /s btw).
No major party on either side of the Atlantic are pro-illegal immigration or advocating unlimited mass immigration (or anything close to unlimited).
I didn't pass any judgement on that policy, nor blame immigrants for anything. I only observed that it's a deeply unpopular policy across the political spectrum yet they won't abandon it because it's seen as non-negotiable by a small class of very left wing people.
Labour following their desires instead of trying to boost their polling numbers isn't "centrism" by any definition.
> The US is a very right wing country. It's politicians are better able to avoid populist price controls. Maybe with Mamdani that's now changing.
Rather than placing price controls on private companies the US slashes taxes to the point where public services then cannot invest in infrastructure and maintenance - and then use that as an argument why public services should be privatized.
If tax cuts aren't populist policies I don't know what are. The magic trick of the right wing parties has been to sell tax cuts as a great thing to the very people who don't benefit from the cuts and are hurt by the fiscal fall-out. That and attaching themselves to Christianity while not following any of Jesus's teachings.
When a service is a monopoly there is no good reason for turning it into a for profit company outside of feathering the pockets of the rich. If the electricity supply to my house (and by extension my street and my city) is controlled by one company and they own the cabling and infrastructure then what is the motivation for them to not jack up my prices to generate profits to their shareholders, as they should as a shareholder owned company? What is their motivation for encouraging renewables or improving infrastructure when those would reduce profits and reduce shareholder value?
Mamdani hasn't even been voted in yet. Keep sowing that fear so that the people his policies might benefit don't actually vote for him - because he's a scary socialist (in the loosest, most American, definition).
The difficulty of getting people to vote for tax rises is a good justification for privatization. This difficulty isn't some uniquely right wing thing. The Democrats and Labour don't campaign on general tax rises either. At most, the left are willing to campaign on "tax rises for people who aren't you". That's because any party that wants to raise taxes on the majority loses.
So, governments of any color have to work with that as a constraint. Given that nobody has worked out how to convince everyone to accept big increases to their tax bills, you can either pay for new expenditures with borrowing or with cuts elsewhere. Sometimes cutting elsewhere is also hard, so either:
1. Everything gets put on the credit card. This ends badly.
2. Stuff is privatized. This yields an immediate cash influx, and voters are usually happy with the results which is why very few privatizations have been rolled back. The reason is that outside of very left wing spaces most people trust private companies on pricing much more than governments. Private companies run special offers, sales, sometimes cut prices even in the face of inflation and can be visibly seen competing on price. Government owned organizations never do this.
It's also (quietly) popular with governments on both left and right for another reason - it means they have less stuff to manage and less stuff that can blow up. If there's a problem with a privatized industry they can just tell you to switch to a competitor instead of needing to campaign on it and promise to do better.
Natural monopolies do exist and sometimes governments just have to bite the bullet and run such things themselves. But there's a lot of room to debate what is and isn't a natural monopoly.
What was weird was when the restaurant was closed and looked deserted but you could still order online and hope the locker with your order lit up with your food (it did).
I found it disconcerting that I couldn’t tell who was making my food, it felt dehumanizing and weirdly off putting
Like using a vending machine? Having worked at McDonald’s for 4 years before I started my long tech career, why do you think you’d known anyways after the food goes from grill to front counter via a bin? Double that via drive thru, there is always a division of labor anyways…it’s fast food after all.
Having had unhoused neighbors steal my order at Starbucks, I find the system they use in China reassuring.
I think your parent made a perfectly good point. Going into the store is a whole lot less pleasant than staying in my car and waiting a couple extra minutes in an environment I enjoy.
If I’m in a hurry then yes maybe I can shave a few minutes by going in, but if I’m getting fast food I probably don’t feel like interacting with people, and listening to crappy piped music while standing in an artificially lit corporate chain restaurant waiting for my order.
Some people stop every day on the way in to work rather than make coffee at home in the morning. They’re often ordering some caffeine concoction rather than drip coffee. I have known people with $100+ per month Starbucks habits.
Yeah it’s this, Starbucks isn’t a coffee place; it’s a caffeinated drink place. Their brewed coffee (outside of their higher end tasting room stores) is deliberately undrinkable to push you to their espresso drinks or their sugary concoctions.
If you’re compressing at load-time it can be a lot. You can do a quick and dirty compress to BC1-3 (assuming you are on PC) in a few tens of milliseconds but quality will be suboptimal, higher quality will likely take a few seconds per texture and going to BC6 takes even longer but will look much better.
It’s not entirely trivial (if you care about texture quality) you’re choosing 2 endpoints in 3d space that can be linearly interpolated to values that best fit 16 points in 3d space.
I may have been a little off with saying seconds per texture but it’s definitely non trivial amounts of time. And ects (mobile) and BC7 are certainly still not something you want to compress to at game load-time.
It's an open ended optimization problem. You can get bad results very quickly but on high quality settings it can take minutes or hours to compress large textures.
And the newer compression formats have larger block sizes from 8x8 to even 12x12 pixels. ASTC and BC7 are a different beast to the early texture compression formats. You can get pretty awesome image quality at 2 bits per pixel (and slightly less awesome at less than a bit per pixel).
For a few years it seemed like Tesla and SpaceX were those companies - reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, boosting clean transportation and solar, pushing forward space exploration.
But the promises turned into stock boosting lies; the environmental good into vote buying for climate change deniers, and space exploration into low earth cell-towers.
Those years were a long time ago for me. I’ve been arguing musk is a snake oil salesman since at least 2014. I lost friends over it at the time, people who were very heavily invested into musk, both financially and for some reason, emotionally.
how is he snake oil s. since that time, he with his several teams, actually made electric cars a market wide reality, cheap orbit rockets and with starlink internet almost everywhere possible on earth? snake oil would be over without actually changing the history.
> he with his several teams, actually made electric cars a market wide reality
Electric cars? That would be Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, Tesla’s actual founders. They created the Roadster and brought the vision. Musk came in with money, staged a hostile takeover, and then rewrote the company’s history to fit his inflated ego, like the sad little man he is. It's honestly cringe.
> cheap orbit rockets and with starlink internet almost everywhere possible on earth
Amazing what billions in government contracts and management smart enough to keep Elon out of the way can accomplish. SpaceX deserves praise; spinning it into a Elon is a genius narrative? Not so much.
As for the snake oil, just a few of Elon's greatest hits:
1. Hyperloop. Old idea's wrapped in new buzzwords. Never viable. He didn’t invent it, but he sure wants you to think he did, just like with Telsa.
2. FSD “next year” since forever. Still not here. Still being marketed like it's solved. And still charging like a wounded bull for it.
3. Robotaxis and appreciation hype. Musk literally claimed Teslas would go up in value and earn passive income as robotaxis. It doesnt get much more snake oil than this.
"We’re confident the cars will be worth more than what you pay for them today." – July 2019
"It’s financially insane to buy anything other than a Tesla." – April 2019
Absolutely laughable. Show me one consumer owned Tesla that’s worth more today than it was in 2019. I’ll wait. If you can't, we'll mark it down as snake oil bullshit.
4. Optimus. Elon hyped this like Tesla had cracked general purpose humanoid robotics out of nowhere, leapfrogging companies that have been grinding on this for decades. The first reveal? A guy in a suit dancing. The follow ups? Stiff prototypes doing slow, assisted movements and following that, remotely controlled animatronics and so on. Meanwhile, Musk is on stage talking about replacing human labor, reshaping the economy, and bots becoming more valuable than cars. None of it is remotely close. But it worked, stock popped, headlines flooded in, and the fantasy sold.
5. SolarCity. An overhyped, underdelivered money pit that Tesla had to bail out. Just another Elon tyre fire.
6. "Funding secured." Flat out lied about taking Tesla private at $420. SEC slapped him, but the stock soared. Mission accomplished.
And that’s just scratching the surface of his bullshit. It ignores all the other missed deadlines, quality issues, inflated delivery claims, etc etc etc. Here is some more of his bullshit, also I am sure not exhaustive:
Yes, he’s had wins. But wins don’t erase the mountain of bullshit. Elon’s biggest output isn’t cars or rockets. It’s hype. His true skill is selling fantasy to retail investors and tech worshipping middled aged white dudes who still think he’s some genius messiah. Strip the PR away, and you’ve got a guy who overpromises, underdelivers, and never stops running his mouth.
man I'm so sorry for you. Like if you can't understand what some people lead or achieve, which is real with rockets and such. You just write long BS for you bias. Have a good day
> Little of what you mention was evident before 2014.
I was responding to a parent that said "since that time."
Even if I had not been, it just serves to validate that with each passing year I have been given only more reasosn to think the things I did in 2014, today.
Their only misstep was making one of their colorways poop brown! That and being too late to market with a phone that used the same design language