The difference in conversions between free and $1 is not a matter of price. The hard part is getting someone to pay in the first place.
That's why a model of free game with paid addons/extras/pay-to-win/etc. works so well – once someone already tried your game and gets invested in it, they're more likely to spend anything.
And in mobile gaming there's also the matter of looking for "whales". Basically, while majority of people will never spend anything, there's a minority willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars. Then, the difficulty comes from showing your game to enough people to find whales.
(Whether that model is ethical in the first place is a whole different matter. I don't think it is, so maybe eliminating it will be a net positive in the world.)
At my last job, I had a little bit of experience on the other side of the hiring table – our founder walked me through our hiring process, and it was really eye opening.
Any posting we had immediately got a lot of responses. We heavily tailored our postings to appeal only to people we actually wanted (e.g. were super clear about requirements, or talked extensively about company culture), and we still got dozens of applicants almost right away. And IIRC that was just through Linkedin, I hadn't even seen how many applied through other channels.
Granted, most of them were mass-sent resumes, but that still crowded any good-fit applicants and made it a pain to look through.
For positions at bigger companies, you could easily be competing with hundreds or thousands of mass-sent applications. Even if a human being ever looks at your resume, she'll most likely make a decision on whether to throw it away in a few seconds before moving to the next one.
At this point I think applying to postings is pretty much dead. Instead, I'd focus on contacting your past colleagues asking if they know of any openings at their companies.
Instead, I'd suggest:
- Contact your past colleagues if you hadn't done so yet.
- If there are relevant conferences or meetups in your area, consider attending.
- Also, look into meetups for groups that might look for someone like you. E.g. if you go to a front-end meetups, you're just another guy in the crowd, but at a marketing or local chamber of commerce meetup there might be only a few people with the same skillset. Granted, this one often works better for freelancing, but still.
- A friend of mine found his previous job by contacting people in the field and asking for advice. He moved to a different city right after university, so had no local contacts – I told him to look up people in the companies he wanted to work for, and just message them asking for a short advice call. I think the third person he spoke to recommended him to someone that was hiring. Though the key here was that my friend was only asking for advice on how to get into the industry – but once he spoke with people, it was easy to make a good impression and they kept him in mind next time they heard of an opening.
> If you're trying to find a job, you're not applying for "anything and everything". You're applying for a specific role.
Strong agree.
I'd only add that you might have way better chances reaching to people personally rather than using traditional channels. It might sound obvious, but it's easy to forget that you can use the same skills you've built as a founder to find a job. Just messaging a few people working in the industry you care about and scheduling some calls can go a long way.
Eh, I might be a whiner, but I seeing that nature.com, I expected something better than a Malcol Gladwell level article.
Okay, the tip with anthropomorphisation is okay, and reminding people that you can't believe in LLMs output is always good... but, like, I'd assume an average Nature reader is smart enough to not need tips like "iterate" or "embrace change".
It kind of seems like an intimidation tactic. Not too many artists will be willing to claim copyright infringement, if they can get hit with a suit in response. And in the meantime, they cab happily continue training their model on whatever they want.
This is like people filing bogus dcma takedowns on YouTube videos. The photographer doesn’t have a valid claim, yet continues to file claims knowing that he doesn’t.
What other remedy does the site have?
People can’t train modes on whatever they want. They can train models on whatever is legally available. If I set up a photography site and post images for the entire world to see, then the entire world can see them. Including model trainers.
On the other hand, assuming that the following are true:
* The activity "has been expressly permitted by the European legislator"
* The person in question continued to threaten / press legal action
Doesn't it make sense to be able to ask for damages? IOW, shouldn't we be intimidating people against making baseless legal threats?
Obviously if either of the above two are false, then the legal firm in question are in violation of professional ethics and need to be hauled up before the German equivalent of the Bar Association.
Is it legal though? Article mentioned forbidding the use of crawlers. Besides, it talks a lot how they only link to the image... but that's not how AI works, right? Maybe after incorporating the photo into its weights the model no longer needs the original, but it doesn't seem like an explicitly legal thing.
What this organization is doing is making a database of links to pictures with metadata that includes what is in the pictures. AIs can use this to train. The organization is not using it to train AI nor do they host the image.
Yeah, the annoying notifications are the visible part... but as far as I know, GDPR has a pretty serious impact if you're European. It allows you to ask private companies to delete your data, which to me seems like a pretty huge privacy win.
Implementation could definitely be a lot better, but I think it protects Europe from the privacy hellscape that's currently happening in the US.
I think the entire idea behind safety is to start worrying before it becomes critical.
Similarly with Covid, the right time to start worrying (on a societal level) was before the disease becomes widespread. The tragedy of that means that if you take the correct action at the right time and succeed, you will always look like you were overreacting.
The proper solution is to have a plan (with contingencies, etc) and follow the plan. Otherwise the solution is guaranteed to be political and thus stupid.
Politicians are going to be worried about perception of the appropriateness of their actions, not the correctness of those actions.
Some variant of what you're thinking about might've been possible in a small society (say, when the shop owner in a village knew all his customers, and was able to keep an eye on the troublemakers).
But in modern world it would basically mean that you might get banned from thousands of stores across the entire country because a cousin you barely know is an idiot. Or more likely, you'll just appear on the "do not serve" list without even knowing you're on in or finding out why.
So yeah, treating these two as the same thing is dishonest.
Like, obviously I'd be in a big trouble if my password manager suddenly put all of my data online and it could lead to massive financial damage.
At the same time, there are governments that literally have the power to kill their citizens (or citizens of nearby countries). At least LastPass can't declare a war upon me.
That's why a model of free game with paid addons/extras/pay-to-win/etc. works so well – once someone already tried your game and gets invested in it, they're more likely to spend anything.