get this: beans

My honest recommendation: realize that you’ve been sucked in to using youtube as an addictive coping mechanism. You say you love youtube, and I get it - there is a lot of fun stuff and a lot of useful information there. But YOU ARE WASTING YOUR LIFE. For many people, watching some youtube videos sometimes is fine - but for you, at this moment, you should strongly consider the tradeoff between continuing to watch videos and doing literally anything else in your life. Finding and spending time with a significant other, cooking healthy food and exercising, making new friends and spending time with old ones, advancing your career and making more money, creating art, exploring nature, learning about the world, becoming a valued member of your community, etc. Looking at those great big distant dreams you had during childhood and adolescence and chasing them!

I highly recommend that you do everything possible - EVERYTHING possible - to remove youtube from your life Right. Now. Seriously - take your tv off the wall, stand it up on the ground, and give it a swift kick in the screen with the toe of your boot. Or if you wanna be an environmentalist about it, list it for sale on fb marketplace and take it off the wall so you can hand it off as soon as someone comes around.

Install every app/site blocker you can on every device that you own. Pay for the premium version so you can get all the features to keep you off the platform.

Make plans for what you are going to do with the time you are no longer spending watching youtube. Hang out with friends. Sign up for a pottery class. Volunteer at the animal shelter. Clean your home up.

Your brain will fight you. It will say “but youtube is so fun, and I’m really invested in these channels right now, so I can just cut down a bit and it will be fine.” It will say “but youtube has lots of good information - what if I need to fix my car?” It will say “but youtube has a lot of cultural relevance - how will I keep up with the memes my friends are sharing without it?” Your brain is trying to protect itself from being deprived of its most consistent, low effort source of feel-good chemicals by coming up with all sorts of convincing-sounding reasons for never having to change. Don’t listen to it. For any benefit youtube might provide you with, you can get that somewhere else in the world. If you want to laugh, you can see a standup show or make jokes with your friends. If you want to learn something, you can read a book or take a class or read wikipedia or ask a friend who knows more. And the biggest one of all - if you want that feeling of feeling comfortable hearing about the small minutiae and updates of someone’s life that you’ve known for a long time, you can do that with your friends! You can do that, and have the other person actually know you exist!

And of course your brain will say “I’m not addicted, I just need to cut down a little, but I could stop anytime I want.” Yeah? Then prove it. Try to go 2 weeks without youtube. If you can’t, then you have a problem

The impression I’ve gotten, fooling around with it at home and talking to friends in tech and hearing from actual users online is:

A good developer can develop faster with it. Giving it small, discrete tasks for first drafts or throw away code (like bash scripting) can work well.

It’s better google. If you are trying to figure out if a function that will do a thing exists, or are trying to figure out what architecture would work best in a given situation, it can be helpful. But in these cases, it should be used carefully - dont ask it to do your work for you, ask it to give you options, pros and cons, and sources. But in this regard, it can do a lot to help an experienced developer become more productive faster in a stack or tool they are unfamiliar with.

Vibe coding is a real thing, and it can work. For internal tools in a small company, a non-technical person can create a mostly functional piece of software to get a job done. My expectation is that over time, these people will become real developers, as they end up dealing with bugs and edge cases in the vibe code they created.

At the top end of ai-for-software-development, there is some sort of something with automated iterative looping and verification, where a developer can translate a set of requirements into code, and then a collection of ai agents iteratively develop the code until it works as expected. This is what the tech bros seem really hyped on, and it does seem to work… but at the same time, my feeling is that this is how you get multimillion dollar AI bills. And presuming this is how big tech is developing their products - it seems prone to making inefficient, buggy code, so I don’t think it will be worth it long term.

I was gonna say - the bulk of weather forcasting is done by governments. Commercial weather channels/sites/apps draw from these predictions and give them a nice interface, and sometimes apply some proprietary prediction algorithm (eg, a lot of commercial weather services bump up chance of rain, because people are angrier when it rains when you said it wouldnt, versus doesnt rain when you said it would).

But I wouldnt expect government forecasts to have changed due to AI tools. Except maybe in the US due to the DOGE debacle - but even then, why fuck with it?

Of course it didnt cover that. This was an article on the efficacy of AI in writing software, not a treatise on ethical or legal concerns. I would completely lose trust in the author if they started piling on every reason why “AI Bad”, because it would be clear that they have an agenda

After doing some research on the US census website, my best guess is that, yes, tourists are required by law to complete the census. Though they definitely seem like an afterthought, since I couldnt find any direct reference to tourists completing the census. And also, while technically legally required, on the same page that explains that you are legally required to respond to the census, the government also wrote a whole section about why you should respond to the census.

So in practice, almost no tourists are going to complete a census form, and they will face no legal consequences as the census has basically no legal enforcement mechanism.

As for your followup - why would they want tourists on the census? - Well, because they want the best data they can get. They’re a bunch of nerds collecting data to do statistics on. Why would they just leave data on the floor?

using every trick in their book to circumvent regulations and to continue building

when the US was building highways through black communities

The US building highways through black communities is a big part of why we have committees that can hold up rail development. And do you really want a government that uses “every trick in the book” to build railroads? No! You want a government that follows its own rules both in letter and in spirit, and one that reigns in the excesses of the market economy when necessary, and one that simply writes better laws.

I think you just described being “Not religious, but spiritual”.

So, like, you’re the worst

I’m just saying

They have established themselves as the critical and inescapable middleman between consumers and providers, not necessarily directly or exclusively but in every practical way possible and in such subtle ways that it’s not always obvious how much they actually control.

You can hear the creepy piano music when you read this

I mean, sure. But if that’s your standard for “mind control” then asking someone to pass the salt counts, too

This sounds like a weird conspiracy theory. Communicating with potential customers that your product exists and is good isn’t some concept that the advertising industry has somehow wrested from the hands of good hardworking people in return for their wages. It’s what marketing and advertising IS. It’s like saying the cheeseburger industry controls our access to cheeseburgers - like, kinda. But also, that’s kind of definitionally true. You can, of course, raise and slaughter your own cow to subvert the cheeseburger industry. And you can hand out fliers you made yourself advertising your business on the streetcorner. But it is a lot less work, and you’ll probably get a better product, if you outsource the work to a specialist

This is not, in any meaningful way, mind control. It’s just making something memorable. You don’t become a mindless zombie because you listened to a jingle. Instead, it just means that when Jerry, who is really busy because of his kids and career and hobbies has State Farm hike his rates, he will think “those motherfuckers! Who else sells insurance?” And will then remember the jingle.

Most of these platforms operate by showing you profiles of others, and showing them profiles of others, and requiring some kind of mutual match to start a conversation. I very much doubt any of these services create bot accounts to do this, and to be fair, they don’t need to. The bots are created by scammers hoping to run a scam on lonely people.

The better apps do things to remove bot accounts. Hinge, for example, doesnt have many bots atm ime. Tinder, meanwhile, has been losing marketshare for the past several years and is becoming more lax about policing bots (not that it was ever particularly stringent…) in order to inflate user numbers to show to their shareholders.

People tend to match with bots because the bots will try to match with basically anyone, and because the profiles are made with pics of hot people.

For anyone who has adopted an effective strategy in dating apps, bots are not a problem. You can identify bots quickly and easily because bots don’t go on dates. So if you match with someone cool, ask them out not long after you match. Most people who are actually using a dating site to find a partner (long term or otherwise) want to go on dates, so this is normal and expected. Any effective strategy minimizes long, drawn out conversations with people (since these convos almost always go no where anyway, even with real people), which is the opposite of what scammers want (finding people desperate and lonely enough that they will make an emotional connection with someone they have never met in real life).

But the biggest problem people have with bots isnt actually getting scammed, but rather, the emotional turmoil of seeing the notification that you got a match, then realizing it was just a bot. This can be effectively delt with by getting more human matches by becoming more attractive and getting better pictures to show off this attractiveness, and having modes outside of OLD to get dates so your whole romantic life isnt caught up in the internet (which, btw, is also attractive)

OKC changed its model because it was losing marketshare to Tinder. Now they are both owned by the same company - but I would guess the two sites operate largely independently and try to compete with each other, since from the parent company’s perspective, two services trying to outcompete each other will drive eachother to also outcompete outside competition.

As a reminder, you can make your own dating site if you think you could do better. And there is huge financial incentive to do better. Say you make a dating site that actually effectively finds people good matches quickly and easily. Millions, if not billions of people would flock to your site, and you could name your price to use your service.

Since I’ve been online, I’ve seen a lot of different dating sites with different formats and gimmicks. Craigslist personals, OK Cupid (the old style), Grindr, Tinder, r4r, Bumble, Hinge, Fruitz, Badoo, Feeld, along with countless others that never took off. Match group doesn’t have a stranglehold on the industry. Any of their competitors could become “the dating site that actually gets you good matches” if they wanted. And since dating apps are purely digital, it would cost zero money to make an open source version and collapse the whole industry. So why hasn’t anyone done that? Why does it seem like online dating engages in a constant cycle of novelty, rather than ever getting better?

Well, probably because the fundamental problem is not solveable by software: people want to “date up”, but don’t want to improve themselves. It’s like Ronnie Coleman said - “Everybody wanna be a bodybuilder, but don’t nobody wanna lift no heavy-ass weights.” If you made a dating app that told people what their problem was - “The person you just liked is an instagram model, but you are not instagram-model-hot, go hit the gym” - then no one would use it.

But they do have competition, as I mentioned earlier. There are other well known and used dating sites, and people always have the option of simply leaving the house to meet someone.

At the end of the day, they are incentivized to find you a match, because a dating app that actually generates matches and dates is far more valuable than one that doesnt.

That is an awesome idea for a dating site. You should make it, and when it starts finding people their soulmates within a month, it will quickly become the most profitable app in the world and you’ll make oodles of money.

Or else you’ll figure out some flaw in your plan, and it will end up about as good at finding people matches as showing them a random assortment of people on the site.

If your complaint is “this business won’t give me their services for free”, then that’s not a real complaint. They’re a business, and businesses exist to make money. Last I checked, the price of a hinge subscription for a month was about $30. You could easily spend that much on a few drinks in a night at a trendy bar.

Is tinder full of bots? Yes. But also, tinder is something of a sinking ship, and the bots keep their numbers inflated while not fighting thr flood saves on expenses. I’ve had much better luck on Hinge.

Hot take: match group is actually doing a pretty damn good job of trying to get you a date. The constant changing fashions of dating sites indicates that the company’s sites don’t have a stranglehold on the market like, say, facebook does. They have significant competitors in the form of Bumble, Grindr, Feeld, Badoo, etc. People on site like Lemmy often concoct conspiracies about how the sites are somehow nefariously keeping your soulmate from you.

But they arent. Dating sites arent difficult because the companies are evil (sure, they are evil, but thats not why dating sites are difficult). They are difficult because people are difficult.