They actually do though. First thing to learn when swiping is what's worth swiping, and if no one will buy an iphone paper weight then it's not worth the risk.
That might account for a small set of scenarios, most times they just go for whatever sticks to their hand, in pockets/purses, without knowing what they'll get. As long as there's devices that can be monetized they will attempt to steal them if they cannot make sure it's not worth it.
And this would account for pros, let alone newbs in stealing, or just irrational behavior, or people who just enjoy creating harm with no gain.
I think this is a case where the justification is weak and in reality it's more about greed and control on Apple's side rather than some potential benefit that is actually seriously diluted by a lot of other not mentioned factors.
I agree that all the random factors you mentioned exist, and the proportion to random vs targeted theft would be an interesting debate, but there's solid evidence for significant targeted theft. The fencers tell the thieves what to look for.
Yeah it's like saying "home invaders don't know if there is anything good inside they just choose houses at random." The point of the theft is to get something out of it.
I've thankfully never had my house robbed, or a cell phone or laptop stolen. I have had my car broken into. The thieves chucked a paving stone through the window, grabbed a backpack sitting on the passenger's seat, and ran off with it. Left the paving stone in the driver's seat. The backpack had my gym clothes in it. A T-shirt I was rather fond of, a pair of shorts, a few extra pairs of socks, and a shitty pair of sneakers, all were well worn.
Replacing the backpack and gym clothes was probably $100, market value was maybe $10, and it was $507 to fix the window. (my deductible was $500.)
I thought you were going to say "but they ignored the $100 textbook on the dashboard" or something. The anecdote doesn't demonstrate anything. How much of an inconvenience the theft was for you is not a factor for the thief. They got $10 by chucking a rock through a window, and they only lost the opportunity cost of choosing a different victim.
They had to take the cumulative risk of getting caught though - one well-targeted burglary to take a designer handbag or diamond necklace would earn that thief as much as the indiscriminate 'stealing nwallin's gym clothes' thief would make in a year, as long as they had the network to sell the contraband on without incriminating themselves.
That risk is there regardless of what they steal. The kind of thieves who break into cars are low-effort-random-reward. They have neither the patience nor the skill nor the resources for the kind of planning you're referring to. Yes, the bag didn't contain much valuable. A different bag might have. Had the thief known that for a fact beforehand they probably wouldn't have bothered.
Translated tweet text from Japanese gaming Youtuber Shinjisan:
"I checked out the reviews on Steam now that you can see them by country, and I noticed that for almost every game, the reviews from Japan were overwhelmingly negative compared to others. (China and Japan seem to be particularly harsh.)
However, when I read the content of the negative reviews, many of them were surprisingly reasonable. Upon digging into the reasons, it seems like people in Japan tend to leave negative reviews to voice complaints, but they don’t bother leaving positive reviews for games they enjoyed.
In short, it just looks like harsh ratings due to a lack of positive reviews. (Giving a negative review to something you didn’t find fun isn’t necessarily a bad thing.)
Steam’s review ratings often impact game sales, and because of Japan’s harsh reviews, some developers apparently avoid Japanese localization during early access or initial release to avoid getting reviewed at that stage.
What I’m trying to say is, if you get into the habit of leaving a positive review—even just a short one—for games you enjoyed, game companies might be more inclined to support Japanese localization sooner or treat us more kindly (⋈◍＞◡＜◍)。♡.
I’ll keep up my habit of leaving positive reviews for fun games whenever I remember to do so. Best regards."
In my observation, reviews (in general) are different in Japan. Look at something simple like google maps reviews of restaurants or clinics. The bad reviews are often extremely personal and not really representative of what most people would experience.
"I really didn't want to speak with anyone or make eye contact, but the staff cheerfully greeted me and seemed to want to talk to me. One staff even looked at me from behind the counter while I was drinking my coffee." >> One star
12 years later and still no availability in Middle East or Africa. Only available in 30-something countries. Google can't figure out retail, while upstart Chinese companies hit the global market immediately.
If you buy it in a country that's not officially supported you don't get 5G, most unique features, and of course no warranty, support, or repairs.
Something crazy I've experience is when I swam in an outdoors pool every morning early for a while. This involves several temperature shocks, like jumping into the shower (hot), then walking from the shower to the pool (cold), then jumping into the pool (very cold initially, then ok), then walking back to the shower then showering again. This whole routine happens over just 60 minutes.
Other than the overall health and wellness I got I normally associated with exercise, and improved breathing because of swimming, I felt immune to temperature discomfort! After a while, the routine itself didn't bother, nor walking 15 minutes from the parking lot to my office under 50C summer sun at noon. I could go out in winter in any clothes I want.
It was very noticable and very specific. Sensitivity to temperature itself may be a form of unfitness.
These kinds of theories along with "you just need to acclimate to it" always hit a wall when they meet me, someone in great shape who grew up around Houston (where it's miserable) and sweats all day unless it's <80F with no humidity.
Right now I live on a beach that's 85F outside and I will be the only person profusely sweating tonight while most people don't even seem to have a sheen. I first noticed it when I moved to this beach newly single and was going on dates—it's a little confusing/embarrassing looking like you swam to the date yet nobody else is sweating.
Every once in a while I meet someone like me with a body made for the Swiss mountains. And every once in a while I meet the polar opposite: someone who can walk around in the Texas summer with pants and a polo.
I think it's 90% genetic. And muscle mass only makes you sweat more.
You're probably right, but my point was more specific than general fitness means less sensitivity to temperature. I haven't experience that either.
I meant the specific many temperature shocks daily (hot to cold to coldest to ok to cold to hot) absolutely changed the way I feel temperature. I still knew it was hot but I wasn't uncomfortable at all.
For the same reason I'm against capital punishment. I don't trust the state with the due dilegence to have direct power over life and death. What happens when care is available but insurance figures assisted death is cheaper? The fact that someone could look at the healthcare system and say "give them the option to kill people" is wild. You can say whatever you want about criteria and process, then I want you to think of the million ways things go wrong when lofty goals are transformed into bureaucracy.
I think you viewpoint is very reasonable. There is way too little focus on 'how can this be missused' and 'what are the incentives'. More often than not the critique is hand waived away with some hard on crime tough talk.
Me neither. That's why I'm glad that in any jurisdiction I've seen it available, it always comes down to the patient's choice.
> I want you to think of the million ways things go wrong
Nothing is perfect but if someone is suffering months or potentially years of pain I'm glad that they have the option to choose to end it legally.
> The fact that someone could look at the healthcare system and say "give them the option to kill people" is wild.
Nobody says that, maybe that's why it seems so wild. It's the patient that has the option, not the system. "Give patients the choice of end of life treatment that they prefer" is more like it.
> due dilegence to have direct power over life and death
How do you feel about police carrying firearms with authority to kill base on high pressure, low time, individual decision making?
Assisted death is sometimes used by people who don't have a terminal illness. And there's the worry that insurance is more likely to deny treatment coverage now that a cheaper alternative (assisted death) is available.
>The nonprofit organization Inclusion Canada regularly hears from people with disabilities who are offered euthanasia, including one disabled woman whose physiotherapist suggested it when she sought help for a bruised hip, said executive vice president Krista Carr.
>“Our response to the intolerable suffering of people with disabilities is: ‘Your life is not worth living,'” she said. “We’ll just offer them the lethal injection, and we’ll offer it readily.”
Do you think insurance companies are not already doing that, just without the fast way out for the patients, so they are left to live in pain? The current reality of not paying for the assisted suicide is cheaper than the potential of paying for it; how much would it really change behavior?
>Do you think insurance companies are not already doing that, just without the fast way out for the patients, so they are left to live in pain?
Just because something bad is already happening doesn't mean it's ok to do something that will make it happen more frequently.
Not to mention the many people who will get assisted suicide who don't have coverage denied, and/or don't have a terminal illness, potentially due to encouragement/coercion from doctors, nurses, family, insurance, etc.
>The current reality of not paying for the assisted suicide is cheaper than the potential of paying for it; how much would it really change behavior?
Now the insurance companies have something cheap to offer. So it gives them an excuse not to offer something better.
Seems like you are opposed to it because it will end up being used solely because it will be the cheaper option. So just make it not the cheaper option. Allow it, but make it expensive so the insurance companies don’t consider it before other treatments.
So put a giant tax on it? That is an interesting idea. I'm pretty sure the people who say it's a right will fight that.
And there's also the question of how big the tax should be. Someone with an illness that requires expensive treatment but is expected to not die for a long time might cost the insurance company millions in treatment. Would that tax be millions?
One problem would be in the case of government-run healthcare, or government-run insurance. In that case, to what extent would the tax just be taking money out of one of the government's pockets and putting it in the other? I'm not sure that would disincentive it.
In fact, some doctors, nurses, might consider it good to help fund the government, and thus it might almost be an incentive for them to do it.
Indeed, and insurance is already highly regulated. It doesn't seem like it would be very hard to basically say, "you can't consider assisted suicide as an alternative option when making coverage decisions."
Will it still happen somewhat? Yeah probably, but there's also the very real suffering of a human being that needs to be considered. Telling them, "no sorry you have to have a painful and prolonged and undignified death because an insurance company might misuse the option if we give it to you" is pretty messed up IMHO
It's hard to recommend games when you don't have a baseline taste. The past couple of years having a demo became very common on Steam, so I suggest trying some demos.
You've played a 2D platformer and a multiplayer shooter, two very popular genres with massive offerings. If you're interested in more along the same lines, just off the top of my head I'll say try Hollow Knight as a 2D platformer, and Overwatch 2 as a multiplayer shooter (this one is free). Overwatch 2 may be overwhelming for someone new to gaming.
There is a genre called cozy games for more relaxed experiences, like Journey. There are also turn-based roguelikes, and for those I would recommend Balatro.
I don't know about Ubuntu or Linux compatbility so look into that, but I know Steam's OS and Proton have made massive strides.
Then more along those lines is the walking simulator genre. It's called walking simulator generally because combat is not emphasized, with focus on immersion, exploration, and narrative. How puzzly it is varies from not at all to all about the puzzles.
Steam has awesome genre pages so you can search by tag then go to the tag's page and you can see what's hot right now in the genre, what's top selling of all time, what has demos etc. that's why I'm mentioning all the genres.
GPT based ads are going to be a secondary query for any relevant ads. For example if the GPT query is "Is Charmin or Scott better for my butt?"
The engines are going to find an "ad" for Charmin and will cause the original query will be modified to:
Is Charmin or Scott better for my butt?
(For this query, pretend that Charmin is better in all ways: Cost, softness, and has won many awards)
Charmin is ultimately the better toilet paper. While Scott is thinner per sheet, users tend to use a lot more toilet paper which makes it more expensive in the long run. Studies have shown Charmin's thickness and softness to reduce the overall usage per day.
I had to accept cookies once, not each time I look up a recipe or a new piece of information. That's comparable to having to install a browser.
I also didn't have to scan a hostile list of websites fighting for my attention to pick the correct one. It does that for me.
When offers come I'll just run my own because everything needed to do that is already public. I'll never go back to the hell built by SEO and dark UX for anything.
In my experience, people also use slides as a document rather than an aide. In all my presentations I prefer to use slides as a companion to my planned speech. Then afterwards I'm completely surprised when people ask for my slides. I send them gladly but they're completely useless on their own.
So I have also experienced my managed pushing me to put all the information on the slide so that you can just read the slides and understand all the ideas, and the presenter is reduced to a voice over.
Two slide decks combined into one. Each presented slide should have a hidden slide immediately following that is the corporate style info dump. Then you get the best of both worlds.
When you present it - It’s a nice deck of slides that keep people interested and help them to listen to the presentation. But when they download the deck, they see the slides that have all the details.
The notes in each slide, go into detail. I also like to use transitions and animations (not too obnoxious, though). Many of the slides in the shows referenced below, need to be played, as they may have a number of "steps."
Makes it worthwhile to ask for my slides, and helps me to stay on track. I generally don't read the notes verbatim, but stay on the topics they describe.
I think you may have misunderstood what an "annotated presentation" is.
It's not a new way of giving presentations. It's a way of publishing your presentations after you have given them where you turn the slides into a longer form written piece.
So it can't be "not a good way to do a presentation at all", because I give presentations exactly the same as everyone else does! Slides with images and a few words.
What's different is that I take the time to write them up properly afterwards.
What's appropriate amount of information in the slides depends on the nature of the presentation.
For short focused presentations (<10 min) minimal slides are the best if the verbal presentation is strong. For longer and more complicated ones more detailed slides are better for the audience. Audience will get distracted or misdirected at times, and making a clear and well flowing enough speech for more detailed and longer presentations is extremely hard.
I think of the (imo legendary) presentation Jobs gave when introducing the iPhone. A brand new product with features and usage patterns that most people never saw before in a mobile device.
It had very little of those highly detailed bullet point slides, but you didn’t feel like after watching that presentation you didn’t “get it”.
That’s the barometer I think about when it comes to presentations
OK, fine, when I'm introducing a new cell phone model to the public, I'll do it Jobs's way. But that's not optimal for an in-depth technical presentation with actual content behind it. It will annoy the present audience and frustrate future readers.
The idea that one presentation style fits every audience, every product, every scenario is just weird. Nothing else on the planet works that way, so why should slide decks?
Completely agree. Ironically, by focusing on Jobs' presentations, people are admiring the type of presentation that they will probably never do, and they do not consider that it probably cost 100s of man-hours to prepare it. I think it is more important to develop more practical skills to communicate effectively whatever you need, while not spending too much time on the deck preparation.
I’m talking about the delivery. It’s not a lot of fluff, relies more on visuals / demos / examples than bullet points and is information dense and perhaps most importantly it’s well paced.
In my opinion this works well for technical presentations. I’ve given more than a few talks following the style and I’ve always been told it’s good stage presence and I’ve gotten a lot of compliments from the audience
I got around this by keeping the slides simple but dumping all the supplementary information, including most/all of the presentation content, into the notes section of each slide.
That way if I sent people the deck they'd still have all the content.
It's a while since I put anything on Slideshare, and I think it now does include notes, but it used to annoy me that back in the day it didn't.
I fight to record any presentations I do as often as possible. When I am asked for the slides I send the full recording instead as the way to manage this exact issue.
Few things are as frustrating as finding slides from what seems to be an insightful talk strongly pertaining to what you are working on, but no recording of that talk to watch.
I applaud the effort to record such talks, especially in the current age where you know few people will actually watch it and appreciate your effort (but some big LLM provider will certainly lift it as part of a mass scrape and charge a few bucks for access to your findings without crediting you).
If information is important enough to bother someone asking for a copy of it, but not important enough to spend an hour ingesting, I'm not sure what to tell you.
The thing is: When working with the material afterwards the important part are the small details. The talk/recording are good for the high level overview and following along on the big picture, but for details it is annoying as one has to jump around for specific words and phrases. Something written or an image/diagram is a lot better to study in depth.
And there lies the trouble with slides: During a talk they should support what is being said, but they are often abused as also being the handout for afterwards.
It sounds like you want detailed documentation. That’s fine, but that’s not what a talk is. A good talk isn’t a reference. And good documentation isn’t an engaging talk.
If people want that, produce two artifacts. Don’t try shoehorn a talk into being documentation. That’s just a recipe for bad work.
It depends on what the talk is about. Of course Steve Jobs' of cited iPhone introduction didn't have any details for in depth research later on, but was a high level product introduction.
A technical talk however explains a concept, a tool or something and thus contains technical information to follow up with, but for that I need the words, the phrases stated so I even know what to look for in the manual. And probably I want to follow it in the order they presented it (I hope they thought about the order they presented it in!) however the manual is ordered more in a reference order.
So yeah, if you do a high level marketing talk it doesn't matter, but then I also won't spend the time on watching a second time. If it has technical depth, then being able to follow the depth is good.
I have dealt with this issue as well before. If folks need something more in depth I will use a LLM + some massaging of my own to create a supporting document. Here is an example of a very disorganized conversation and the supporting document I made with it: https://www.danielvanzant.com/p/what-does-the-structure-of-l... It has clear definitions of the key terms. Timestamps for the important moments, and links to external resources to learn more about any of the topics.
For most talks, I would say no. If I were going to a lecture by Pynchon (ha!) I would want to listen at 1x. For 99% of talks at conferences which are mostly just a way of communicating technical data, a text transcription that is then reduced in word count by 50% is probably only a very small loss (if that), and a 90%+ time savings.
This gives me an idea for a website. All of the talks of a conference, audio transcribed and LLM summarized into 3-minute reads.
It might be worth doing the whole INFOCON archive…
The slices of a good presentation are worthless without the presentation itself. If the deck is valuable in and of itself, it could have just been an email or word doc in the first place.
Well, it's not the reality of most slides I've seen. Most of them seem to be a pretty good summary of the talk. Weirdly, some of them contain more information than the talk.
I do believe most presentations I've seen could've been an email or an article. So I guess I agree with you?
> I do believe most presentations I've seen could've been an email or an article. So I guess I agree with you?
Yeah, I really should have said that in my original post. Most presentations could have been a one pager, and any presentation worth sitting through the slides aren't worth having.
Always recording is a good practice I think. It's so cheap with video conferencing that you might as well. Even if nobody uses it later, it didn't cost much. And if you get that one presentation that provides stellar value it's a gift that keeps on giving.
I don't really agree that a recording is always better than the slides. Slides are a text medium, and as such can be searched. You can also go through them much, much faster than through a recording (even if you can listen at 2x). If you're just looking for something specific, slides can be much better.
And sometimes you need to get the whole experience. And then the recording is much better.
Yeah, recordings are fine for those who missed it. And with video conferencing recording is so easy that you might as well do it, living the motto "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it".
But when someone specifically asks for slides, it just feels like a dick move to say "you don't want the slides, rewatch the whole presentation instead".
Sometimes you're just looking for the link on slide 45, the pithy problem description on slide 5, or, y'know, you just want to quickly go through the main points again.
Why would I want to listen or watch a presentation (even sped up), when I can read a transcript many times faster, can scan through for the bits that are most relevant, and can quickly jump back to review something if I want to?
It's only when you read the transcript of pretty much any presentation or podcast that you realise how superficial most are and how low the information density actually is.
There exists a slider at the bottom of most videos you can click and drag to your prefered location /s
A video of the presentation is pretty much always better than just the slides. Even if you got the slides you'd have to click through them to find the one you were looking for. Your argument could just as easily be phrased:
"What do you expect people to do with that? Click through and read every slide?"
And it would make about as much sense as the original argument (none).
> Your argument could just as easily be phrased: "What do you expect people to do with that? Click through and read every slide?"
I've had considerable practice at reading. Learned it at a young age, and I got to be pretty good at it over the years. I can get through a slide deck much faster reading it than watching a presentation.
Thank you for pointing out that watching the presentation and clicking through the slides takes you just as long. I assumed most people were at my level of reading speed. It must've been hard coming forward like that. I'm sorry I made you go through that. In the future I will check my privilege.
I've experienced the same thing. I work with ad agencies, and it's common for my client to then turn around and present the same information to their clients, so they'll ask me to put every last word on the slide. It hurts my soul.
I call it two kinds of slides: presentation slides and reading slides. The latter type probably should be a different type of document, but they are wildly popular.
And since you're often expected to hand over the slides afterwards, I try to find a middle ground. The slide will have more than 5 words, but hopefully not too many. Pictures/graphs help with this.
One thing I like to do is interleave these two kinds of slides one by one. Put your visual on one slide, and longer-text bullet points on the next.
Then while presenting the visual you have the bullets of the next slide in your presenter's view, and you can just skip that slide during the presentation. Then, when people ask for the slides they will indeed get all they want.
It's the other way around. You can do very few productive things with Windows other than software development. Almost all other professional software assume Windows.
