Alex_V

A good journalist ought to explain things that are of concern to their audience. After all, a review is a form of guidance or advice intended to help their readers get by in the world. Therefore, every tech review of, for example, a Google/Alphabet product ought to have at least one paragraph on the subject of how the company makes money. Because Google/Alphabet is primarily an advertising company. Google provides a product or service only to harvest their users’ data for the purpose of advertising. And their appetite for our data is insatiable. This level of invasion of privacy is unprecedented in human history, for one company to know so much about so many of us, and it’s dangerous to say the least. They collect data mostly surreptitiously, by disguising their intent, such as by offering Android software for free. And their efforts mostly go by unacknowledged, as in this article. I think that must change. I think that every review of Google/Alphabet must be accompanied by a paragraph laying out these basic facts. Then, at least, a potential buyer will know that they are not comparing apples with apples, but rather, apples with some-dude-in-a-raincoat-standing-outside-your-apartment-and-following-your-every-move. 

gatorguy said:

Alex_V said:

gatorguy said:

Ther thread concerns Generative AI search, Mayfly's post concerned Apple Generative AI search, to why would anyone presume he wasn't referring to Google's Generative AI search when addressing their services? Since you and I get a different understanding from his post, perhaps not so obvious for at least one of us, huh?

As for what cognitive reading is, have you done a search? Google's Generative AI gives you the quick answer, but you'll find lots of individual sources with Google, as well as Bing, or their generative AI ChatGPT, or DDG's older-style search, or whatever. Pick the one you're comfortable with

Okay, you made it up. 

Search is hard.
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Examples-Of-Cognitive-Reading-Theory-PJSMUKKQJG
https://tlconestoga.ca/meta-cognitive-reading-strategies/#:~:text=Cognitive reading strategies help us,language, and problem-solving.
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/2431/243169780015/html/#:~:text=In other words, cognitive strategies,in a text more successfully.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED406644.pdf

gatorguy said:

Alex_V said:

gatorguy said:

Alex_V said:

Dear Google’s Number One Fan,
That’s a red herring fallacy. Mayfly clearly referred to sponsored links on Google search. You responded with a rhetorical question about sponsored links on Google’s generative AI. You addressed a different point, not the point that Mayfly made — a deliberate red herring tactic.

oh, geez, cognitive reading not your forte? The discussion thread and Mayfly's initial post is regarding generative AI search.

 mayfly said:
An Apple-engineered generative AI would mean I never again have to sift through the mountains of sponsored crap to find information I need or want. It would end Google's domination of search for me. 

Mayfly specifically referred to Google search, something that was obvious to anyone reading his post. 

I happily pointed out your fallacious reasoning as you challenged me to do so in an earlier discussion. Also, what on earth is ’cognitive reading`? Did you make that up?

Ther thread concerns Generative AI search, Mayfly's post concerned Apple Generative AI search, to why would anyone presume he wasn't referring to Google's Generative AI search when addressing their services? Since you and I get a different understanding from his post, perhaps not so obvious for at least one of us, huh?

As for what cognitive reading is, have you done a search? Google's Generative AI gives you the quick answer, but you'll find lots of individual sources with Google, as well as Bing, or their generative AI ChatGPT, or DDG's older-style search, or whatever. Pick the one you're comfortable with

gatorguy said:

Alex_V said:

Dear Google’s Number One Fan,
That’s a red herring fallacy. Mayfly clearly referred to sponsored links on Google search. You responded with a rhetorical question about sponsored links on Google’s generative AI. You addressed a different point, not the point that Mayfly made — a deliberate red herring tactic.

oh, geez, cognitive reading not your forte? The discussion thread and Mayfly's initial post is regarding generative AI search.

 mayfly said:
An Apple-engineered generative AI would mean I never again have to sift through the mountains of sponsored crap to find information I need or want. It would end Google's domination of search for me. 

bob-tahoma said:

Marvin said:

bob-tahoma said:

1.5% of the British workforce have jobs because of Apple? I’m calling bullshit on that one. 

That's not what it says, it says they support 550,000 jobs. The app development industry alone according to the following site says there are 65k employees:

https://www.ibisworld.com/united-kingdom/market-research-reports/app-development-industry/#IndustryStatisticsAndTrends

Then there's all the sales in 3rd party stores and resellers for their products and accessories plus shipping.

Apple's just pointing out the economic activity that is in some way attributable to them. If their $20b investment was spent on salaries, that's enough for $50k x 400,000 full-time jobs.

It's not like they just pull the number out of nowhere, they have accountants who know where all their investments went.

What constitutes “support”? Selling of one lightning cable per annum? If so, equally bullshit then.