That conclusion does not seem to check out just by eyeballing the charts.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?location...

It shows a divergence from the EU back in the 2010s, but afterwards is recovering at the same pace or even faster than the EU. Could be better, but not "in shambles" either.

The figures I cited are for GDP per capita, which accounts for population growth. Moreover immigration should have the opposite effect of depressing per-capita GDP, because immigrants typically take lower skilled jobs, dragging overall productivity down. So if anything, the figures are artificially depressed, not inflated.

Plenty of companies proactively take action against shady users, even if not 100% required under law. Youtube has content id, social media companies have "community guidelines", and ISPs have AUPs.

But it's among the fastest growing in the EU? Granted, part of this is starting from a low base, but it's hardly "in shambles"

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locat...

OpenAI and Anthropic have been getting stingy with their plans and it's only it's been what, 1 year, maybe 2 since vibecoding was widely used in a professional context (ie. not just hacking together a MVP for a SaaS side hustle in a weekend)? I doubt people are going to lose their ability to think in that timespan.

Is that bad? After all, even if they hiked to price infinity, you wouldn't worse off than if AI didn't exist because you could still code by hand. Moreover if it's really in a "business" (employment?) context, the tools should be provided by your employer, not least for compliance/security reasons. The "expectation" angle doesn't make sense either. If it's actually more efficient than coding by hand, people will eventually adopt it, word will get around and expectations will rise irrespective of whether you used it or not.

Anymore? Real (inflation adjusted) wages are up for all income groups[1]. The lowest percentiles actually saw their wages grow more in relative terms than the highest.

[1] https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20260103_FBC...

So the seam looks neat when the macbook is closed, eg. https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/MacBo...

>California. Not Geneva. Not Zurich. Santa Clara County. Let that land for a second.

>That's not an interpretation. That's not reading between lines. That's LiveKit's own [...]

>Not by breaking Signal's encryption. Not by going to Signal. By extracting [...]

>You don't get notified. You don't get to contest it. You find out [...]

>Not a single anonymous source. Not a single leaked document. Not a single interpretation [...]

>An ordinary person — not an activist, not a whistleblower, not anyone doing anything wrong

>And others bitching about being instructed to read the whole thing, clearly didn’t.

The problem isn't that it's indecipherable, it's that the reader feels their time isn't being respected. If the author (seemingly) can't be bothered to put the time into writing a blog post, resorting to AI generated slop, why should readers devote time into reading it in its entirety?

>Which, you know, others would have found out if they read before commenting.

Part of your job as a writer is to get your readers to actually read what you're writing. If you want to write about how Trump sucks with the aim of convincing Trump voters to change their minds, but start off with a diatribe about how Trump voters are brainwashed cultists, that's poor writing even if it's theoretically not "hard to read".

Nah, later in it makes a bunch of spurious claims about how it's theoretically possible to infer that you used/downloaded/paid for protonmail, therefore it's not as "private" as promised. The problem with that claim is that most people don't expect their usage of the app to be private. After all, if you're using protonmail, have a @protonmail.com address, and have a payment to protonmail in your bank statement,can you really reasonably expect the fact you're using protonmail to be kept private? Complaining about this makes as much sense as complaining that Signal isn't private because it doesn't operate off Tor, and cops can figure out you have it installed through the notification icons on your lockscreen.

The part about livekit's privacy policy deserves attention, but the rest of the article seems like mostly AI generated slop to so the author can make a broader claim about how proton isn't private.

This only makes sense if openai was cutting the quotas to below the original amount, which so far as I can tell hasn't happened. Otherwise it's just a cynical take where any sort of promotion can be cynically interpreted as "Manufacturing demand. Create the problem. Solve the problem".

I mean, if you're so fervently against ads to the extent that paying a single cent is "a lot", then I suppose it's true, but it's highly subjective. By most reasonable comparisons (ie. ads vs non-ad price today, ads vs historical ad price), it's not "a lot".

You're misunderstanding my comment. I'm not arguing that price hikes haven't occurred. In fact I specifically acknowledged them. I'm only making the narrow argument that despite implications to the contrary, the ad supported plan today is cheaper than the paid plans. In other words the implication that "we're paying more and still have ads" is false.

Even if we treat your source as canonical and authoritative, , it doesn't answer the question I was asking. It only answers a slightly different question of "what was the first instance of a paid advertisement in an American newspaper?", which obviously is going to be American.

>But did you know that the first time a paid advertisement appeared in an American newspaper it happened here in Boston?

> ...

>Yeah, I know. Not today. Eventually? Probably, over many incremental changes.

Given that people have been making this argument since the days of search ads, has this actually come to pass? More than 2 decades after google, the max extent is sponsored results that look like organic results unless you're looking carefully.

That's why I compared against the 2011 prices. The ad-supported plan is still cheaper.

>cracking down on password sharing or kids off at college

Doesn't password sharing affect ad supported plans too? It basically has no effect on the comparison because it makes both the ad supported and non ad supported plans cheaper.

This doesn't match reality. The "standard with ads" plan is $8.99 today, a dollar more than the ad-free "streaming only" plan launched in 2011. However factoring in inflation, the ad-free plan from 2011 would cost $11.74 today, which means the ad supported plan is still cheaper, even ignoring the price hikes.