I was probably posting my second comment above when you were posting yours. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But to be clear, I didn't say that x number was equal to the print run. And even then, if you were looking at ads, you were generally looking for a specific thing. In my case, going back years and years, my eyes would hunt for a coupon or sale price on particular soda - not naming brands. But my eyes were looking for that picture, and skipping everything else. Passing through the optic nerve is different than paying attention. I looked at sports pages too, but couldn't have told you anything that was on them because I was simply passing over them to get to something useful. And yes, I'll admit that there was perhaps some tiny percentage was retained about a brand. But I was never - oh that looks good - let's try that.

And I do agree that ad viewing has changed in print and in digital, and agree with all of your complaints about the intrusiveness of digital ads. Regardless of the causes, people's relationship to ad reading has changed. Being mad at ad blockers is simply not a rational position anymore. And the advertisers can totally blame themselves for that fact. And really, even though we hate ads in general, it is more that we hate the slowdown on the page due to serving the ads and risk in clicking on something that might be malware that we detest. Time is more valuable than the best "deal" an ad might suggest. Serve the ads in-line from your own server and take responsibility for making sure they are legit. This again goes to reputation.

I suppose it depended on the paper, but most cultural events I saw promoted were in their own arts section. That whole section is an ad and is outside the scope of what I was referring to.

The death of the classified ad section in the paper due to Strider-'s comments about Craigslist and eBay are also spot on. I was never in a position where they were particularly relevant to me, but I am probably an outlier there.

I don't have a problem with digital distribution of news. I subscribed to the print WSJ for a very long time. But with our wonderful US mail service, the print edition would arrive in batches, days late. It became worthless. So I switched to digital once monitors got a high enough resolution that I could read the print edition in digital format. I still skip the ads. It's even faster to right arrow over full page ads now than to turn a page manually, and it's available first thing in the morning instead of when I get off work and already stale by a day or more depending on the US mail. So I'm a fan of digital news.

But the WSJ exists because of their content and price points. A bloomberg terminal is out of my price range. The WSJ is okay for budget conscious people. If it had a comics page I'd be even happier. And I suspect that providing some of their content to the world - say a few articles a month - doesn't hurt them much. A bundle with IBD and Barron's is pretty reasonable.

But I gave up on the local paper quite a while ago. Too little local news coverage, and anything important was going to be in the WSJ anyway. And their subscription price for a year was higher than WSJ.

I suppose there are a few columnists in the NYT or daily that people don't think they can live without, but it is really about content for every newspaper. If you provide timely content that is unique and worthwhile, people will pay for a subscription. If you don't, or are just one of many AP or other news feed suppliers, you shouldn't be surprised when nobody wants to subscribe. But it is also largely about reputation. People aren't going to sign up for a subscription or expose an e-mail address just to view an article. If you are worthwhile, people will subscribe on their own. But they aren't likely to subscribe to some unknown paper (or even a well known paper like the NYT) if they don't need it for local news. I live a long way from NYC. I might read an article if it was free, but I have no interest in paying a subscription price for all the NYC local content that doesn't matter to me.

Most of them are probably doomed. There are a few where content makes it worthwhile - the Wall Street Journal, perhaps Barrons and a few other financial papers where people are willing to pay for a subscription that is cheaper than a dedicated terminal but still allow you easily spot new information about financial instruments of interest to you. There are a few magazines whose content is also sufficiently unique that a subscription might be of interest to enough to keep things afloat.

But most general newspapers are going to have to find a different funding model all together. Many local papers bit the bullet a long time ago. If they haven't been bought out or folded, hey have little local content, and what local content they have is just repeated column inches of upcoming events that doesn't vary by day. And if you are just going to repeat the AP news feed, people can go there directly. Just because you are in a large metropolitan area, you aren't going to survive because people just aren't reading anything much anymore.

Brave has a news feed.

I didn't look at ads when print was a thing either. Digital is no different. They sold advertising space on the make believe notion that x number of eyeballs saw every ad. It was always bogus. It's just that it's easier to prove the lies now.

AI allows drawing conclusions from mass movement information, it is beyond just someone's location, it would allow predicting market moves based on movement of groups of people.

This is not just about following any one person, this is about information movement, following a group of people who work on the same project for example to understand when they are going towards the same site / goal. This is beyond dangerous.

Rewriting legacy code in itself makes sense if the idea is to extend and improve the project, add new features, increase functionality. For this purpose, however, you need a person with access to all of the documentation and understanding of why the code exists, not a person who can ask an LLM to rewrite the code simply by using the existing code base as the documentation base. Before rewriting the code what needs to be done is documentation needs to be created (if it doesn't exist) and business requirements need to be collected, basically normal business analysis and product management, once you have that you can hand it over to a developer.

Starting with a developer is probably a recipe for failure in this case.

- lets just make sure we get behind it during the other 99.9% of the time..

I am against government involvement in any construction or any planning of infrastructure whatsoever. I am against government as a general principle. People taking care of themselves is the basis for all humam civilization in the first place.

Wait, you believe that government builds sewer pipes, gas systems, plumbing, roads? All of these things were and are built by private companies and should be built by private companies, not governments. Nothing should be done or built by governments, there shouldn't be any government employees, all government employees should be fired, all government regulation need to be abolished. People will rebuild everything, there shouldn't be even such things as government enforced zoning laws.

Nobody should be working for any government, givernment jobs should be stigmatized, people working for government should be stigmatized, gobernments shouldn't have employees. People working for governments should be scared that other normal people will find out.

ChatGPT says all of this is completely possible.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6add...

How likely is it that Flock is not already using its network this way?

imagine how flock personnel uses flock network every day...AI allows drawing conclusions from mass movement information that can provide information far beyond just someone's location. It is probably possible even to figure out market moves based on movement of groups of people.

This is not just about following any one person, this is about information movement, following a group of people who work on the same project for example to undersrand when they are going towards the same site / goal. This is beyond dangerous.

Fuck him and the horse he rode on. Fuck his business. Fuck his technology. Fuck his company. Fuck his employees. Fuck his investors. Fuck his government ties. Fuck him defending this shit. Fuck everyone who wants this. Fuck the government for buying into it. Fuck the laws that allow this if they do.

Oh, you are 100% right There needs to be more mental health for police. The moment a person decides he or she wants to apply for a police job they need to be placed into a mental institution, they are a danger to people around them.