I wouldn’t feel full or satisfied with such research done by other on open ended questions such as What kind of inflatable kayak should I buy? Maybe after researching, I realize that really I should get a rigid kayak instead. Such research is iterative, interactive, and some of my preferences or personal knowledge can’t be easily externalized.
Sure, but then you submit the next question to the concierge service. There might be follow-ups and tangents, but you pay a flat fee under this model, why wouldn't you have them do some follow-up for you?
Also it's an important distinction, because an exponential will always eventually grow (or shrink, depending on sign) faster than a polynomial, no matter how high order.
That’s why you also do due diligence on your prospective buyer. Also when talks are reasonably advanced, ask for a non-refundable advance as a proof of love.
Not everything is able to be reproduced scientifically and reversed engineered. It’s not less real because of that.
You may know how to ride a bike. Can you reverse engineer and explain in an algorithmic way how to ride a bike? No. Does that invalidate the fact that you can indeed ride a bike? Of course not.
Edit: do not fixate on the bike. It was just an example. Write a symphony, create a joke, understand irony.
Of course you can do that. You can even measure the angles and forces involved. There is no “unexplained physics” in bicycle riding.
Dowsing for corpses, on the other hand, absolutely requires new physics, because the pseudo-physical explanations offered around piezoelectricity and people having different voltages are deeply inconsistent with our understanding of physics.
I agree that there are things that are true but not explainable like at the edge of our knowledge, black holes, quantum physics etc.
But riding a bike seems very easy algorithm. All these self balancing scooters, remote controlled toys, seems like perfect examples of what you get when you reverse engineer bikes.
Of course we can reverse engineer and describe how bikes work...
Anyway, the fact that we can not formally prove all true things doesn't really matter. That doesn't make all things equally valid. We find supporting evidence, we build conceptual models, we test the periphery of systems.
Even if you could not explain how you ride a bike, you could still reproduce it scientifically. You don't have to understand something to reproduce it, only what parameters are needed for reproducing it.
You could observe the sun rising and setting long before understanding the revolutions of our planet.
If someone can do something, you can reproduce it. That's true for bike-riding, but apparently not true for dowsing.
Is that a lot from Google's perspective? If apps follow some power law distribution it might only be worth providing human support to a very limited number of them.
Customer support is provided for sub $20 items from e commerce sites who don't have Google's market cap. Not to mention that a customer support agent's time isn't exactly worth hundreds of dollars an hour.
It depends on how narrowly focused Google's strategy and commitment to reliable income is.
Linearly scaling up on human support agents doesn't look aligned with an AI driven strategy to enable income that is only coming from their advertising services.
Google Services generated $69.4 billion, or about 92% of total revenue, in Q4 FY 2021. Advertising revenue, at $61.2 billion, comprised 88% of the segment's revenue. The segment's revenue is up 31.3% compared to Q4 FY 2020. Google Services posted operating income of $26.0 billion, up 36.3% from the year-ago quarter.
This figure surpassed Alphabet's total consolidated operating income of $21.9 billion due to operating losses in the other two segments as well as unallocated corporate costs. Google Services is thus the only segment that currently makes positive contributions to Alphabet's overall operating income
So Google Play can only exist in ways where it supports advertising. Sales are trivial in comparison. "Delighting" every app publisher is simply distracting.
These horror stories would mostly come from publishers that rely on the source of income, from whom the yearly Google play is likely to be at least a few thousands. There's no excuse to not involve a human in a decision as drastic as account termination.
The figures include sales of apps, in-app purchase and *app store ads*.
I would also prefer that Google have more tolerable support for publishers (and users), but it looks like those at the helm might be thinking it's irresponsible to see publishers as important customers. The publishers are not the ones providing the vast majority of the revenue - that seems to be advertiser.
The attention economy is addictive for those pushing it as well.
Did their accounts end up permanently banned or could they recover them? Seems like something that could actually be abused if not. A weaponized banned Google account on a laptop. A laptop with cooties. The seven generations punishment.
> Did their accounts end up permanently banned or could they recover them?
How could they recover them? The only support Google offers for situations like this is write a sob story on social media, and hope it gets enough traction that a Google employee intervenes.
I'm no longer doing android development, thankfully (never again!) -- I don't relish the thought of having to ask house guests if they or anyone they know have ever been banned from Google. I don't understand how Google can staff up their Play store with engineers given this keeps happening.
They are weaponised already unfortunately. There are HN stories of competitors reporting devs/apps and them getting irrevocably banned without a platform to complain on/to. I used to like/defend Google, but they keep disappointing.
I even have Google-anxiety and am considering moving everything away before it becomes too late
How does this compare to printed base 64, then OCR? It seems more robust to print and recognize text than binary patterns. You can always type it out if you are desperate.
