What a fantastic read! Quite funny throughout, and genuinely insightful.
Hazzard
Don't love the framing of this paragraph from TechCrunch. It's not that they're charging for the API. That's understandable and obvious, and we all wanted the platform to survive. I'll be happy to volunteer to contribute to lemmy development/server costs/app development one day. It's that they're grossly overcharging for the API to such an extreme degree that paid subscriptions to third party apps actually lose money.
In April, Reddit announced its plans to start charging developers to access data through its API. The move was obvious — to restrict third parties from accessing Reddit data that can help build text-generating machine learning models such as OpenAI’s GPT 4. Developers building apps and bots to assist people using Reddit and researchers who wish to study the platform for noncommercial purchases were among the few exceptions. However, as a result, third-party apps, including popular Reddit client Apollo, found it difficult to pay for those charges and decided to go offline. Various popular subreddit moderators came in support of those apps and developers and started protesting against the API pricing move.
Haha, you can actually. But I wouldn't recommend it, I'd say it's even harder than killing Calamity Ganon early in BotW.
Unless you're a sucker for punishment, I'd explore elsewhere.
Oof, so counterproductive. I'm a hard reviewer, always try to hold others to the standard of code I'd like to work in, and be held to myself, but every once in a while I see a PR that's just... no changes required.
I love just hitting accept without making any feedback, it means my coworker valued my feedback and actually internalized it. Trying to laser in and nitpick something unnecessary would be a waste of all our time.
Dang, yes. I even tried deleting the comment and reposting lol. Such is the struggle of beta apps. Not doing anything fancy this time.
I highly recommend [](this video), to help with building a straight one. Bit of a pain, but I can fly in a straight line while looking at my phone now!
Just worked for me on mobile, maybe the site was having issues? Worth another shot.
Ah, that _is _interesting. Thanks for the heads up, I had no idea!
Maybe I'm missing something, but what corps stand to make a lot of money here? This sounds like it'll cost the social media networks a fair bit of money, and the benefactors are Canadian news networks, none of which are worth a fortune, as far as I'm aware. Seems to me that Meta would've been lobbying against this a lot harder than any news sites could've afforded to lobby for it. Heck, even news sites seem shaky on it, at least based on the CBC reporter quoted in the article.
Happy to be corrected, I'm just finding it hard to figure out who the "big corps" are that would stand to benefit from this.
Yeah, true. If the definition of "news" here is really as poor as "posted by a "News" site", then you're likely right that that would incentivize much of the same behaviour.
Even still though... even companies like Buzzfeed will occasionally fund "hard hitting journalism". Handing them money blindly like that, though obviously inefficient, may still serve to make more "real journalism" financially viable. And I think there's still people out there with a passion to do that, provided they could survive doing that.
Agreed in general though, even as a first pass at the idea, this is an awkward and subpar stab at it, with some obvious issues.
Y'know, I'm not nearly as against this concept as this suggests. News is... clearly unprofitable in the modern era, and the quality of the average news outlet has fallen drastically in the past few decades. So I'm down for some drastic attempts to recapture that value and reward good reporting.
Obviously this isn't perfect, it might even be full-out stupid, but I don't think perfect exists here, and it's worth trying something here.
Alright, guess I'll reiterate my usual beats here. AI code assistance is interesting, and I'm not against it. However, every current solution is inadequate, until it does the following: