I think the point he's making is that our second bullet of your list would make the third bullet unnecessary.
quirzle
joined 1 year ago
Yes, the article is about a specific instance of it happening.
I think this might be a case where the generic "scams generally work best if done low effort" doesn't apply, since to be successful, this sort of scam requires some specifics. The not-kidnapped daughter was away training for a ski race. Blasting "we kidnapped your daughter" to people whose daughter is sitting on the couch next to them or people without daughters doesn't work at all.
The article mentions people lose an average of $11k in these scams, which means they're probably working best when targeting people with some savings.
"Sorry, those sand dunes look a bit buttcrackish."
Why keep the 3 staff? They're not going to be working diligently to do all the human tasks while freshly aware of how little they're valued at this point. They're going to look for a better place to work.
That's expensive enough software they'd have to be damn careful about false positives that mess with actual productivity because it happened to include a lot of skintones. Seems like they'd either need an appeal process with a quick response time or deal with pissing off legitimate users with the occasional hiccup.
or that it'll work well if it's actually released.
I've seen a few different posts about this, and none of them have had commenters showing any hope of it working out well. Seems pretty universal that folks think it'll lead to a worsening of their current bot problems.
You don't get to be a billionaire with just hard work and fulfilled promises.
I was very aware that the quality of reddit was lower than when I joined in like 2010
It was an ongoing meme that "reddit was better a few years ago and kinda sucks now" but I really think it was accurately the case. Everyone remembers it being at its best when they first signed up because it had been on a slow, consistent downward slide from around 2010 on.
The last couple of years were so bad that I was already going to other sites for actual news and whatnot because anything outside of small, niche subs were overrun with bots (or trolls, since they were functionally the same).
Based on the timing, the 1998 ACLU lawsuit was probably what I was remembering. Would have put me right around my peak pain-in-the-ass years.
Yeah, I vaguely remember it making the news in the 90s, and I stopped standing at that point. I had one teacher tell me once it was "required" that I stand. I just said "no thanks" and continued sitting, and he dropped it.
It wasn't a big protest in my case though. I normally had a CD player stuffed in my belt, and standing made it more likely to fall out and get noticed. I generally avoided standing as much as possible in those days.
The version I heard was "everything in moderation, including moderation."
Fair enough; I wasn't commenting on the idea one way or another, just trying to clarify what I thought the other commenter meant.
Personally, I'm almost never in favor of a ban. I'd rather tax heavily and use the income for programs to offset. I'm 20 years removed from optimism about reducing emissions, so I think we should be leaning into technology that can actively pull stuff out of the atmosphere. That could create an incentive to move away from flying but also use the flying that's still happening to fund figuring out how to reverse the damage that's already been done.