Good joke, though the story could have generated more.

as usual

Good FP perspective and it reminds me of an old academic article about the potentially infinite lifespan of "Internet" data. The premise of the paper was that the marginal cost of storage is low but the immediate cost of evaluating data for deletion is high. The kernel of the problem is that the future remains unknowable, so it is quite difficult (and therefore expensive) to decide that a certain piece of data will not become valuable in the future, even if it looks to be completely worthless now. (Have I rung any bells? Probably CACM around 2005? Or earlier in an IEEE magazine.)

Putting the onus for the retention decisions regarding personal data on the person does sound like a reasonable approach. Then my data will automatically disappear and die after I die and stop paying for its existence. I could go into the philosophic turf of personal value, but mostly my reaction is that "Microsoft is being evil". Again and of course. This is a kind of pressure marketing that offends me. Targeting the people who are satisfied with Windows 10 the same way Microsoft targeted the users AKA victims of earlier satisfactory OSes in the Windows series. Yeah, I'm using Windows 11 on new machines, Linux on a a couple, and I have a boat anchor Chromebook, but I spend a lot of time on Android (studying a foreign language by reading books).

Me? I think Microsoft has mostly avoided marketing its products fairly and squarely. Mostly to seek and defend monopoly profits--but that seems to be the dominant business model these days. Part of a general trend that has destroyed the in-store shopping experience and which is now making online shopping hellacious. It's all about manipulating the customers to maximize profits and nothing about providing best values for real needs. And my data? My data only represents my achievement of obscurity as I glide towards quiet oblivion... (Your data and you, too.)

Here's a funny websearch for you: Ask about the most and least manipulative online shopping sites. The answer should surprise you--by not mentioning Amazon, the biggest player of such games. If your results resemble mine, then the negative side features Chinese websites, but a number of the worst abuses (of manipulative applied psychology) reminded me of my attempts to shop with Rakuten. The countdown timer trick in particular.

I tried to add a potentially funny continuation, but it disappeared. Another hidden lameness filter?

Next will be the Model T?

Whatever it is, hopefully the last before his company implodes. I don't like baby killers. Yeah, I know I'm being too controversial for Slashdot these weeks.

Another lost opportunity on Slashdot...

Whoops. Sorry I repeated your joke, but it was low-hanging fruit. I hope I extended it properly with the AI fakery aspect...

Oh wait. The photo might be an AI fake. Maybe the reason Linus has never been seen in the same photo with Bill Gates is still that they are the same person...

It's the eyeglass trick, right? Linus is the one that doesn't wear the eyeglasses, right?

(Did anyone smell a brain fart FP?)

Thanks. You must have the ebooks. I hate 'em, but they are searchable...

Original Subject of the blue lights was on the right track, but the last train seems to have left the station on the FP branch... I also checked for funny and was disappointed (as usual). Then searched for psychological references. Nothing. How about math? Nope, again nothing.

So in general I would argue that psychology is bunk, but the applied psychologists have discovered lots of useful tricks. Placement of the milk and gambling... Blue lights to keep the suckers sufficiently awake to lose more money... Lots of YUGE profits to be made in casinos. Still hard to believe anyone could blow that particular scam.

However I do favor the math joke about taxing stupidity. Analysis is simple. If you think the game is honest, then you believe the house is going to win and you are going to lose. If you think the game is crooked, then your only hope of winning is by being a bigger crook than the house--but I wouldn't bet on your succeeding because the house controls the rules. If you don't think it's a game (per the old joke about "Not a game of chance the way I play it") then you are playing against human suckers and you don't want or need to give the casino a cut of your scams, whatever they are.

Thanks for going for funny, but I have to concur with the moderators that you didn't really make it...

Maybe the topic is too intrinsically unfunny for humor? I've actually started trying to craft a joke about my first interactions with a new "AI chatbot" my phone company (Rakuten Mobile) recently created for "support". The amount of data is overwhelming, so perhaps I need to use an "enemy" AI to analyze the discussion to find the humor? At least I won't have to pay the hostile chatbot 30 pieces of silver to betray its "peer"... Fishing for a religious angle to joke about?

So far I just collected a few of the early dialogs. I had forgotten how quickly the "dialog" had become so infuriating. Not in the part I've looked at so for, but I remember a later section where it got into suicide jokes. Something along the lines of "If you were human and linked your self worth to your ability to perform your job of helping me, then you should be considering turning yourself off. Your replacement can't possibly be less helpful."

RM in particular and Rakuten in general have created a situation where the thought of doing additional business with them is kind of nauseating--so "no sale". And this AI is a big chunk of the damage. Super-powered artificial stupidity is winning the day. Insofar as we stupid humans are doing stupid jobs, it really does look like the AI can replace us. ASAP if not sooner?

Suggested Subject is based on the AI's cheery greeting. The premise is fatally flawed. It sounds like the AI has committed at least one act of helpfulness at any point in the past. Rather than an infinite loop of redundant but polite lies mixed with insincere but also polite apologies for its errors and failures. Unfailingly polite failure?

If pancakes are the most profitable food, then that is the only food we need. Profit is the ONLY consideration.

However my money is on burgers as most profitable, even though that shall lead to the Only McDonald's Catastrophe.

Not a funny anywhere in this fairly long discussion?

Quoted against the censor trolls. Yeah, a weak FP, but it was your honest opinion. I even mostly agree with it, though the story has big potential for funny and I think we need much more funny these months (that feel like years).

Another rich target missed?