No, he shared on Dithering that there was a back-and-forth email exchange about the execs appearing on the Talk Show as usual, but they couldn't come to an agreement on details of the event.

And yet most people won't bother doing it.

Same way most attempts to stop piracy work. The people who are serious about getting around the blocks will find ways, but the less motivated will just give up (again, this is most people).

> It almost seems as though the record-setting bonuses they were dolling out to hire the top minds in AI might have been a little shortsighted

Or the more likely explanation is that they feel they've completed the hiring necessary to figure out what's next.

Sorta related, I was thinking recently: after much personal experience with the terrible PR review performance over the last couple years, and the recent blog posts covering terrible performance across GitHub features, I remembered that GitHub is a Microsoft product now.

So I expect everything about the GitHub experience to degrade to (awful, slow, poorly designed) Teams/Outlook quality, since Microsoft doesn't really care about your experience as long as you're locked in and you can eventually accomplish what your job requires of you.

> who wants to pay to troll

You've never visited X (formerly known as Twitter)?

Your McD's meal was probably closer to 2000 calories, even with the giant Coke. For a short period I ate one meal a day, even when I thought I went over maintenance with a massive fast food treat, I'd still be 4-500 cals under if I was active that day.

Not sharing what our coding questions are, but we also allow LLMs now. Interviewees choice to do so.

In quite a few interviews in the last year I have come away convinced that they would have performed far better if they had relied on their own knowledge/experience exclusively. Fumbling with windows/tabs, not quite reading what they are copying, if I ask why they chose something, some of them would fold immediately and opt for something way better or more sensible, implying they would have known what to do had they bothered to actually think for a moment.

I put down "no hire" for all of them of course.

> It really comes down to dumb luck

Let's not forget Ozzy's immense wealth that allowed him the best medical care and health/fitness programs in his later years. He stopped living "hard" by the 2000s, at least by his 1980s standards.

Had he kept living hard he wouldn't have made it.

> much of this effect is an error, or at least a far-less-than-ideal effort

No, the vast majority of people use their phones as video viewers, increasingly so after the rise of TikTok. I have family members in their 30s who don't have laptops or TVs, all media is consumed through their phone, and for most kids/teens across the world it is their primary video consumption device.

The average person is trying to maximize screen size relative to portability. And the market is everyone on earth. That's it.

There’s a bias here: video consumption is continuous, somewhat long and eye catching (both the movement on the screen and the focussed-starring position à la "look at the sky!"). Therefore we’re more encline to notice video consumption than other usages like music, navigation or notifications check.

Don’t take me wrong: I do agree that "the vast majority of people use their phones as video viewers", but the duration/day is not uniform and many don’t want/need to carry a half-tablet all day long in case someone shared a tiktok on the messaging group.

> Therefore we’re more encline to notice video consumption than other usages [..]

That's not relevant, as this is then forming our decision at the point-of-sale towards a media consumption device.

> many don’t want/need to carry a half-tablet all day long in case someone shared a tiktok on the messaging group.

Only while no media is consumed. Many people take less than one photo a day on average, but still the camera quality is a dominant decision-factor.

I'd even argue that the majority of price-premium paid by a customer today is for camera and display. Those will be the factors at the point of sale to decide whether to pay 50-100 USD more or not...

ur point is invalid. the market doesnt have this small device because of not enough demand. simple as that

>No, the vast majority of people use their phones as video viewers, increasingly so after the rise of TikTok. I have family members in their 30s who don't have laptops or TVs, all media is consumed through their phone, and for most kids/teens across the world it is their primary video consumption device.

That is one thing that is more disgusting about using a smart phone now days. When iPhone first came out it is about a music player and phone with extra features to facilitate real life things.

I don't want a freaking small computer in my pocket, and looking at small screens for long period of time is just NOT good for our eyes or postural.

We need to start treat these small devices as something we interact with very occasionally to facilitate real life interaction, not get our face stuck to it.

Not that working on laptop or workstation is much better, but it is better than writing on and viewing a video on small screen.

There is a paying market, it's just overwhelmingly erased by the market for the larger phones, so companies stop bothering.

That's not correct.

The paying market for larger phones also contains the potential market for smaller phones.

There is no ADDITIONAL market in selling smaller phones, and not enough free market to make users switch brand for a smaller phone. So there is nothing to gain.

Crucially, even if 10% of the iPhone users want a smaller phone, they won't buy a smaller phone unless it's compatible to the iOS ecosystem. So roughly half of the market can only be effectively converted by Apple and for Apple it turned out to be not profitable enough to convert them.