I think there should be even more than that. Users should be clearly notified that "data is being collected and transmitted", similar to how phones indicate that the microphone or camera is active. There should also be a way for users to see exactly what data is being sent, and the option to stop or opt out whenever they have a right to, which is often the case.

Think about it from a product perspective.

The more users who can easily understand your UI, the more likely they are to use your product successfully -- or to put it more bluntly, to give you money. And guess what? Users with lower computer literacy or reduced cognitive ability also have money to spend. In fact, for most products, there are a lot more of them than there are of the self-styled power users “willing to take the time to learn something”.

Whether catering to the latter group -- by building extra interfaces, power features, or complex workflows -- makes financial sense, depends entirely on the product. If your user base is unsophisticated or their use cases are simple, building extra bells and whistles is just wasted effort.

Sure, some people slap the "inclusivity" label on all this and try to turn it into a moral crusade. But in most cases, it's just business.

And the counter-argument -- that “everything is so dumbed down now,” that society is addicted to “instant gratification”-- is pure elitism. It’s the same tired “I’m smarter than everyone else, why don’t they build things for me?” whining. Well, until society for some odd reason starts mass-producing geniuses, you’re a minority -- and in most markets, that means you’ll be ignored. It’s not that different from the LGBTOMGWTFBBQ crowd expecting bespoke accommodations because they believe they’re uniquely special. Sorry, but from a business standpoint, you're just not worth it.

there is value in preserving the past intact, but that's going to be less and less practical for many use cases as we're moving closer and closer to the internet of the infinite automated monkeys (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FInfinite_monkey_theorem)

so I would disagree about relevant. important, sure

that seems to be a fairly low bar. it's trivial to tinker with a gpt to make it emulate smalltalk, because smalltalk by its very definition is trivially codified.

whether or not customers actually want that experience, and especially if they consider this option an improvement, remains to be seen. my guess is they would, to some degree.

(the interesting corollary to this that as communications with robots because commonplace and cheap, meatbag experience, with all its faults and imperfections, is going to become a premium.. but that's a story for another discussion topic)

it's true that it's one of the reasons though. picture this:

it's the spring of 2020, the new reality is setting in, the shutdowns are starting.. and the online spending skyrockets. (a similar thing, on a smaller scale, already happened back in 2008). now, the BRILLIANT investors are looking at these numbers and are like shutupandtakemymoney.png. most games have a production cycle from 12 to 18 months.. so by the times the games made with these investments are out, guess what? there are no shutdowns anymore and people return to normalcy. brilliant?

force feeding of the woke agenda didn't help either, which might or might not apply to a particular developer/publisher, but certainly did impact the industry as a whole.

but one of the biggest reasons is actually TIKTOK. if you have a choice between spending time playing a game and likely paying for it or mindlessly browsing videos for free, which one you would pick? this is likely a much more serious threat the video gaming industry is currently facing than the other two. it currently only impacts the youngest audience, but if this trend continues, as these folks grow up, they will not have a habit of spending in online games. so we expect a bit of a slowdown in the market.

it's not going anywhere of course, people will always play games, and if you make a good game people will still play it and happily pay for it. as it stands right now, there won't be a lot of external cash inflow and the studios will have to rely on existing revenue streams for R&D.

you reminded me of this joke. an excited CEO rushes into the room and exclaims hey everybody! with these new tools our productivity twice as high! employees are like, oh great, do we get to be paid twice as much now? do we get to work half hours now? does our product cost half as much now? the CEO is like oh actually this means half of you are getting sacked very soon.

disclaimer: I have an MBA degree, but I'm not evil

my company exists for 10+ years and it's been fairly consistently the case that candidates that did not demonstrate good understanding of algorithms would later struggle in the position. and I'm not asking anyone trivia; that would test the candidate's capacity for memorizing such, which isn't really a very useful skill -- I'm asking simple problem solving questions. after all, if someone isn't capable of coming up with a relatively simple algorithm on the spot, are they really a programmer?

the analogy I would like to use is working out: you go to the gym because you want to be healthier and stronger, not necessarily because your job is literally unloading trucks or because you are a powerlifter. there simply isn't a better way of gauging your ability at programming than problem solving -- not because you would be doing this as your actual job.

for our studios in two different countries divided by the Atlantic ocean; job descriptions are practically the same, and pay is slightly above market rates. interviewed roughly 150 people so far since last May, which resulted in 6 hires. vast majority of applicants have 1-2 years of full-time work experience.

so the weird observation is that on the east side candidates are on average better at computer science fundamentals but their command of the engine we're using is often lacking. okay, so they are smart and we can train them a bit on the engine part. guess what, we're very happy with their performance now.

to the west of the pond, however, the candidates are often excellent at the engine knowledge but simple algorithms questions frequently throw a "deer in headlights stare" exception. "I'm going to use Google of course!" (while looking somewhat insulted) occurs at least 20% of the time. "I'm a VR developer, why are you asking this?"... wtf is a VR developer? is that kind of like a piano player who only knows how to use the first three white keys in the second octave? yet someone has hired these people before and paid them money for working with them and not the other way round (ok that was a bit harsh but you get the idea). after all this time, we still have vacancies in that office...

not to sound too arrogant, but maybe, just maybe, the issue is that for many people, actual ability of their skillset to add value to a business is close to zero, and demand for those skillsets is finally now where it should be, instead of crazy as before.

or maybe it's just our sample bias. go figure

>cloud servers
>60m in the air
I see what you did there

I'm not saying that teenage girls-oriented music has not been popular before; I'm saying it didn't use to be the case that pretty much the only demographic that actively wants to listen to music is teenage girls. anecdotally, this appears to me a material change in demand rather than supply -- in other words, it's not that "they don't make them anymore like they used to", it's that other demographics just don't care about music as much as they used to.

I don't know about a "killing"; they most certainly make "some" revenue, but how does it compare to their competitors at say Disney?

and again, Netflix is a new kid on that block and they can set their company operations according to their strategy. it takes a significant advantage to offset changes in the way big labels / music publishers operate, and it just doesn't look like the necessary market is there yet. maybe in 10-20 years? who knows. until then, vae victis.

it is very likely that "you" (as in "making music you like") are not a big enough market to warrant going after for the music industry. (I am in the same boat.) I kind of trust their business sense; I don't think they consciously made a decision to make LESS money by catering to the audience that they chose.

there is an interesting conversation to be had with regards to how music SUPPLY affects popular tastes and in turn shapes demand, yet somehow I don't feel they are missing out much by not going after, so to say, subprime segments of their market.

no one mentioned the other big difference between the pre-streaming era and today: the music people pay for changed, and the demographics of people who pay for music is today very different as well.

not sure exactly why, but anecdotally today's music business appears focused on teenager girls, which certainly was not the case in the 80s and in the 90s. maybe it is the YouTube that replaced some need for other population groups that music used to fill? doesn't matter exactly why; what matters is that with different audience came different purchasing behavior and consumption patterns. perhaps changes in the industry reflect these more than technology advances.

may I ask you to expand what does "these courses turn into some sort of apology for the field" exactly mean? I think I understand the basic idea but a couple real examples would help.

actually, "mir" means both "peace" and "world". (the two words used to be spelled differently before the orthography rules changed shortly after the bolshevik revolution, but they have always been homonyms.) in this case it's much more likely the intended meaning is "world". not that it matters, but still.