i don't even hate ads or the idea of targeted advertising in theory but 20+ years into the panopticon and the company that has the most information about my purchasing habits, interests and dislikes still has never shown me any advertising that was even remotely relevant to my life. i still have better odds of seeing something i actually want to buy just by flipping through the paper and those adverts don't demand that i put my life on pause just because corporation x spent a whole lot of money on a branding campaign that is annoying, unfunny and makes me hate them and their products.

I love getting ads for things I've already bought.

Yes, I just bought a mattress, of course I'm interested in getting another one.

Oh, a new fridge! Always good to have a spare! Thanks Google!

Modern internet is absolutely unbearable without adblock.

This somewhat alludes to a question I have wondered for quite a while. Are there any compelling data that digital advertising even works?

Sure, if one clicks on an ad then immediately buys a product, then perhaps that would be more straightforward. However, I just do not think that is very common, but I could be wrong.

It just seems like there is some kind of false notion that if a company creates ads and the company has an increase in sales, then it must be because of the ads, when in reality, it could be entirely coincidental.

Tangental, but I intentionally boycott products that have annoying ads. I will walk to the ends of the Earth before I use GEICO, for example.

there is a significant difference between skiing at vail and skiing at jackson hole. we have the tourist-friendly mountains basically.

Even granting that (and that it's natural rather than path dependent) it seems a weak explanation for the cultural differences.

colorado is a resort, most of those other states live or die by resource extraction. if we didn't happen have an amenity that was especially attractive to rich liberals (and geographically discriminating against the poor & working class) then co's politics would be no different than arizona's.

weird how so few of these communities with social pressure are even remotely civil.

disposability is like, the main appeal of discord.

aishit is a reverse turing test. if you find it's output exciting or impressive you can no longer qualify as human.

>It's not clear that any development in AI will be any different than the transition to mechanization in the 19th and early 20th century.

so you mean utterly hellish?

>https://martyrmade.substack.com/p/martyrmade-22-whose-americ...

Coal miners protesting drastic conditions in dark shafts in raw mineral extraction mines in 1921 doesn't tell you anything about mechanization and the effect it had on people's lives, not to mention electrification. It wasn't possible to mechanize coal extraction until later and even today with superior tooling and safety conditions, coal extraction remains dangerous.

In the meantime, for vast majority, it improved standards of living, hourly wages, etc. You can't just look at arbitrary data points in early 1900s or late 1800s. Hellish wars, famines, civil strifes, rebellions, assassinations, religious battles, etc go back millenia.

> https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2018/01/historic_photos_f... > https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-factory-wor... > https://worldsfairchicago1893.com/ >

i would not say life has become any more car dependent than it was in the 90s, if anything, public transport where i live has improved dramatically.

for me the dream would be a competitive game where you could get exercise. like if you could race other people with your peloton online. someone made a jank prototype of this for mario kart. >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN6iYyGgqmA

while true, teenagers in particular have lost a great degree of the agency that was afforded to prior generations. the concept using surveillance devices on your children did not exist 20 years ago and yet you can see threads of HNers discussing how they or their schools monitor their children quite regularly.