I suspect there's a range of indices related to content interaction that companies use poorly or even maybe nefariously — for example, are they motivated to present what you want, or what will keep you engaged with the site? Are their assumptions about why, say, you're spending a lot of time on a video correct? This post is focused sort of on options to communicate with the recommendation system, but there's a lot that could be said in terms of mismatched system-user goals in the system, and poor assumptions being made by the system in general.

I wondered too as I was reading it whether it's worth making the distinction between "different features of user experience with the content" and "metaresponse". That is, I can feel positively and negatively about the same video, or like it for one reason but not another; at the same time I can want to provide a response explaining a response. There's a difference between providing information about how I feel about some content, and information about how I want that information to be used.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49505565

Points: 4

# Comments: 2

My tolerance for people posting to X without also posting to an open platform is over.

Public institutions especially.

There's zero excuse, none.

https://apnews.com/article/google-maps-lawsuit-north-carolin...

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/artic...

I'm honestly not sure if those types of events (and their less consequential but more common variants) support the claims of the article or refute them.

I feel like the article correctly identifies the problems with offloading cognition onto technology, but maybe mischaracterizes the scope of the risks, as well as how much this happens with or without modern technology.

None of it would be a problem without the App store in its current form though.

Say what you will about how to improve academics and scientific research, but the current administration's modus operandi is not the way.

I tried Mojo a bit early on and decided to come back to it when it was more complete, and in the interim I read some comments somewhere that the superset-of-Python part was being walked back from.

On https://mojolang.org/docs/roadmap/ it's stated (Phase 3) that "Mojo may or may not evolve into a full superset of Python, and it's okay if it doesn't."

I feel like that "full superset of Python" part was part of the appeal of Mojo.

Personally I'm kind of tired of 97% python-compatible this-and-that. Python itself has enough of a history of incompatibility and the cognitive overhead in switching might be easier with just moving to a totally different language. But maybe not — it depends on the details I guess.

Honestly reading through the documentation more and more I'm more and more confused about what the 1.0 release actually means.

Also crazy.

Seems important to understand why something does what it does, in the very least to know when it might not?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49217921

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

What I'm referring to are correlations between group-level variables at the level of nations or states.

There's a kind of disconnect in that on the one hand, you end up with these models of why disruptive political change happens — because people are deeply dissatisfied and having trouble making ends meet and so forth (cf the price of eggs etc) — but then on the other, end up concluding that well-being is inelastic to external events. So which is it?

Maybe it has nothing to do with aggregate level measurement? Even the trauma example is sort of telling: someone can end up being deeply impacted and their reported well-being remains the same (or even increases), but that story is very oversimplified at some level.

Sometimes I feel as if this line of reasoning leads to absurdities, like there's nothing wrong with traumatic harm or abuse because people are resilient and it doesn't matter to their well-being. I'm being provocative on purpose to make a point — I don't think anyone really thinks that — but at some point you have to wrestle with the implications of what is being said, and at that point it kind of starts to become internally inconsistent.

I wouldn't say they're meaningless, but there's a lot of studies suggesting they don't really change much over time, and my sense is they don't change in tandem with events that should change well-being, except in extremes like widespread genocidal war.

There's even researchers who have kind of taken them seriously to suggest that people have social cognitive biases about the past, and societal changes. I respect them and think what they're suggesting is reasonable (in the sense that they're taking the measures seriously) but the other way of looking at it is to flip it around and raise the possibility that the aggregation-level measurement isn't tracking what we want it to.

I admit I don't have an alternative, and don't think they're worthless per se, I just feel like (as someone who does vaguely related research) like they're tracking something more akin to perceptual sets or world schemas than psychosocial functioning.

I guess at some level I always have the "everything is fine" dog meme in the back of my mind when I see these kinds of well-being or mood analyses.

Academics has its many issues but universities are hardly the only sources of criticism about AI, and for all its benefits AI is poorly understood and often applied in relatively half-assed ways, even when it's well-intended. I would worry if thoughtful individuals weren't skeptical at all about AI.

It also seems reasonable to, say, want to evaluate students on their own merits free of the influence of a "homework machine" (to borrow a phrase from Shel Silverstein).

I'm reluctant to make predictions, and wouldn't describe myself as "anti-AI" but this sort of piece reminds me uncannily of the dot-com bubble.

For years I heard people arguing that wider aspect ratios were preferable because they afforded a wider view, and that narrower aspect ratios were too restrictive horizontally. This always seemed confusing to me because theoretically they should allow for more vertical space for the same width.

Now we're being told the opposite. Obviously if the full frame is being cut for different formats, you're losing some of the shot, so maybe this all reduces to what the director wants, and what is being lost relative to that in different formats.

But then this brings me to my second source of confusion:

> If you watch it in IMAX 70mm, you are seeing it in the full 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which will probably be the only way to experience this format. It would be unprecedented for this full picture to be released on Blu-ray or on streaming, so watching it in a cinema on IMAX 70mm is your chance to experience this.

Why can't releases just be scaled to fit on a screen? You could take that IMAX70mm and scale it down to fit on a different aspect ratios. You'd end up with black bars on the sides of the screen, but then you'd see the same shot, just shrunk down. Everyone has a different TV size anyway so it's all relative.

Clearly resolution plays a role, but IMAX70mm isn't going to be low resolution, and none of this will matter for home viewing anyway.

All of these discussions ultimately seem odd to me. I understand the projection format constraints in movie theaters, but at some point it seems possible to just downscale everything to every aspect ratio format.

They've done it here, so in theory they could just release all these versions as part of a physical disc set (or stream them all):

https://www.odysseymovie.com/explore-formats/