I got very tired of seeing the same video thumbnails over and over.
It seemed like at some point they were pushing into video, of which there were some good ones they put out, but then they stopped. They kept the video links in the articles but since there are only a handful you'll just see the same ones over and over.
I've probably seen the first 3 or 4 seconds of the one with the Dead Space guy about a hundred times now.
You're right, wrote that from memory. It was EBITDA that surpassed anything Twitter previously had before purchasing it.
> Despite a revenue drop from $5 billion in 2021 to roughly $2.7 billion in 2024, the EBITDA margin surged from 13.6% to 46.3% due to drastic cost-cutting measures and restructuring
I used to feel this way, at least about having the TV do zero processing.
Something that recently changed my viewpoint a little bit was that I was noticing that 24-30 fps content was appearing very choppy. I couldn't figure out why it looked like that. It turns out it's because modern OLED TVs can switch frames very cleanly and rapidly, CRTs or older LCDs were not like that, and their relative slowness in switching frames created a smoothing or blending effect.
Now I'm considering turning back on my TVs motion smoothing. I'm just hoping it doesn't do full-blown frame interpolation that makes everything look like a Mexican soap opera.
All you need to fix that is 3:2 pulldown, which all modern TVs should be able to do.
Unfortunately this is another basic feature that tends to be "branded" on TVs. On my Sony Bravia it's split into a combination of features called Cinemotion and Motionflow.
3:2 pulldown (or other telecine patterns) is what was used to go from 24 FPS film to 30 FPS interlaced NTSC video. Your TV or video player needs to undo that (going back to the original 24 FPS) in order to fix a judder ever 5 frames. But that is not going to fix the inherent choppiness of fast camera movements with 24 FPS film and is also not relevant for most modern content because it is no longer limited to NTSC and can instead give you the original 24 FPS directly.
When I'm selling something used, and I look at prices for other listings, I'm competing with them. I want to have a price that is attractive, given the landscape. I'm not messaging all the other sellers and suggesting we all raise prices by 10%, or having an algorithm run by a third party service do that indirectly.
RealPage made it so that landlords were less competitive and more cooperative. Landlords would share proprietary information and then RealPage would help them all set prices collectively. It's just old fashioned price fixing with a SaaS and an algorithm.
So the difference is using pricing info to beat your competitors vs using pricing info to collude with your competitors.
>I'm not messaging all the other sellers and suggesting we all raise prices by 10%,
The way competitors legally message each other to suggest a price increase is via the prices themselves.
E.g. an airline wants to raise the price of a ticket from New York to Los Angeles from $500 to $530 -- and they secretly want the other airlines to follow them and raise their prices too.
1) The airline submits the price increase to the global travel reservation system that all airlines can see. All the other airlines have computers constantly monitoring all the other airlines' ticket prices and can instantly adjust prices in response.
2) The airline that wants the price increase waits to see how the other airlines respond. Either (1) the competitor airlines keeps their lower prices to "take market share" -- or -- (2) they also raise their prices to match which "maintains status quo of market share" but all competitors get to take advantage of charging the higher price
3) If the other airlines don't match the higher price, the airline that "proposed" the higher price then rolls it back to $500. All this can happen within a few hours.
That's the way competitors "collude" to raise prices out in the open. The publicly visible prices are the messaging system. The loophole here is that the changing prices must be visible because the potential passengers buying the tickets need to see them too.
The above scenario has been studied by various papers and the government. The prices simultaneously act as both a "cost to buy" and as a "message to cooperate".
Legal "collusion" via price signals is easier in concentrated industries with few competitors (e.g. airlines). It's harder for fragmented markets or markets with hundreds-to-thousands of competitors. E.g. a barbershop wanting to raise the price of haircuts by $5 isn't going to get the hundred other barbershops to also raise their prices by $5.
>The above scenario has been studied by various papers and the government. The prices simultaneously act as both a "cost to buy" and as a "message to cooperate".
Yea I mean. A simple watch of movie film "A bueaitful Mind" starring John Nash as math genius russel crowe. Crowe equilibrium or whatever it's called. That scene where the nerds were in the bar trying to get the girl. his friends said let the best man win and crowe said - no - only way to win is we collude. and then they won. Now imagine that -- but it's not russel crowe, it's united airlines.
I mean if you look at companies from that crowe equilibruim perspective and treat them as sophisticated and rational.. one would expect most everything to be rigged!
The enterprise sales cycle is often quite long, though, and often includes a lot of hurdles around compliance, legal, etc. It would take a fairly sustained loss of edge before a lot of enterprises would switch once they're hooked into a given platform. It's interesting to me that Sonnet 4.5 still edges Gemini 3 on SWE bench. This seems to bode well for the trajectory that Anthropic is on.
The code snippets are the easy part here. Too easy to blindly deploy, because it might work for 95% of the cases. You know how these things go: KPM increased, move on to the next thing.
> The law needs to catch up. There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to.
I'm not so sure about that.
I don't want a 6000kw Sur Ron riding in the bike lane with me. The whole point of the bike lane was to make a safe space for riding a bicycle. I want the bike lanes to be safe enough for children to ride their bikes in, and having something that powerful in it is not conducive to that goal. They are by and large too fast and too unlike a bicycle for bike lanes. Having things that powerful there is going to dissuade a lot of potential (non electric) cyclists. My girlfriend already gets too freaked out by how fast some of the legal e-bikes in the bike lane go.
Certainly they shouldn't be on the sidewalk. But what does that leave? Just the road. If that's the case they probably need to just adhere to whatever standards the state has for scooters or mopeds. Which probably means some kind of license, maybe registration, and possibly insurance.
But that type of e-bike manufacturer doesn't want to make a light electric scooter that's road legal, they want to make a thing that skirts regulations by being "for off road use only".
And the buyers by and large don't want to deal with license and registration, and certainly not insurance.
Just because people are doing an illegal thing a lot doesn't mean that the law needs to find a way to make it legal.
I think what they mean is these e-bikes pushing 60mph should be legal but reclassified as something closer to a motorcycle. The problem with keeping them illegal is people tend to treat them like bikes when they should be on the road.
This is already handled in the licensing in the UK and Europe it’s an A1 motorcycle license if it’s below 11kW, A2 up to 35kW, and everything over is the full-fat A license.
The law either needs to make it legal or properly be applied to everyone. The worst situation is when an unenforceable law which does not have the teeth for a situation is on the books - it's the same as it being unregulated, but now the government can fine you whenever it wants.
It seemed like at some point they were pushing into video, of which there were some good ones they put out, but then they stopped. They kept the video links in the articles but since there are only a handful you'll just see the same ones over and over.
I've probably seen the first 3 or 4 seconds of the one with the Dead Space guy about a hundred times now.
reply