I would consider including the text box content that is shown below the video on Youtube. Many videos will say things like "I included the link below..." so having that on say https://hackertube.org/watch/PbmJkMhmrVI would be nice. I can imagine there are issues to consider...
I agree with the concept and idea expressed; paying for prevention is good and wise and we do far to little of it.
I don't like the title. I can't believe it is really $100. Even if the scan is $100 that doesn't fix things itself. There is the cost of whatever the treatment is etc. There are likely added expense from false positives (or similar idea), where it flags someone as needing more testing, new interventions when in fact they didn't...
I wish the article was more detailed on those costs (or at least not claim the cost is $100 when it is much more in reality, unless I am wrong about that and the fixes are free somehow). It feels like a biased promotion of this thing we like and/or have a financial interest in so lets make exaggerated claims that hopefully people won't notice.
It is $100 if nothing is wrong. If something is found correcting it is cheaper than a heart attack. Statins are not expensive and knowing how bad things are leads to how aggressive you perscribe them.
Certainly it seems likely treating it for those instances where a heart attack would result is cheaper.
But there is no evidence presented that say for every 1,000 of these test we correctly find 1 that wouldn't have been found (and we have zero false positives) or whatever. So then 1,000 * 100 = $100,000 and saves $50,000. Even in this case there are benefits beyond the expenditures (if you save someone from the $50,000 you probably give higher quality of life...).
Basically my issue is not with the idea that more testing and preventative action would improve our current system. I believe that.
But in order to make that argument in a specific case you need more complete data. Things get complicated so I understand why people don't want to do that for a simple story. But the problem is when you leave off all sorts of costs, issues (false positives, treatment options), etc. the statements you make are not very compelling to those that know a test that tells you something bad is more likely for this person is not nearly sufficient to claim why this test is good.
Or create a new partnership with various like minded organizations and create a new index that each can use in their own way (perhaps those you mention plus DuckDuckGo and others that my brain isn't bringing to mind right now [maybe Wikipedia, EFF, internet archive, maybe Nebius would help...]).
I know this wouldn't be easy but maybe such an arrangement would be possible where there is some shared index and then the partners can each use it, extend it... in their own way.
I could see a collaborative open source web index run by the WMF, Internet Archive, EFF, GNU, DuckDuckGo, and Kagi being too big to simply ignore like a previous commenter suggested might happen to a new index. I could also see Qwant being interested
The last sentence doesn't make that much sense to me though. An agreement with Apple to be the lead AI partner would likely juice the IPO a great deal. The financial details wouldn't matter much for the IPO (as the initial financial commitments are going to be small but the halo effect would be real - I think it would in the market anyway).
I think Anthropic has real commitment to their way of doing things which can cause short term issues (and hurt the IPO). And they seem willing to keep those values rather than just making deals to pump the IPO. As you say Apple also sticks to their way of doing things even if it frustrates their partners.
I think not being the lead partner with Apple may well be good for Anthropic long term. But if all you cared about was the IPO just agreeing to Apple's terms likely would have been the best option.
These SpaceX, Anthropic and Open AI possible IPOs are so extreme it is hard to make judgements about them; so maybe there are Anthropic IPO issues to an Apple agreement that I don't appreciate.
It depends on what Apple wants and what Google was willing to give. Google is in many ways the weakest player in the individual-user facing space.
It's a weird market and these companies want global domination. TBH, i don't have the knowledge or context to understand how to think in that mode and what the real facts are.
I wouldn't put much stock in the deeply held principles of Anthropic (or Apple for that matter). That's an appeal to emotion. I love the product, but they're happy to randomly rug-pull the product and how it works, both in the publicly available products and other contexts. It's just another company.
I agree that Apple (and probably Anthropic) don't hold to the expectations some have. But I wouldn't say they are "just another company." I care about privacy more than Apple. But I think Apple does more to help privacy than any other huge company (and I can't think of another huge tech business to consumer company that does less to invade privacy, but I would be open to evidence I am wrong on that).
Apple is far from perfect but that doesn't mean they don't have a position (say privacy) that they care about and give a lot of weight to when making decisions. But as a huge company they also have many competing priorities.
Caring about privacy or potential abuses of LLM/AI services does not mean that a huge company is going to perform on those areas the way those that want maximum privacy or... want.
I do also believe Apple's marketing reasons to promote their focus on privacy make sense. And even if they don't do as much as I would want they do make a big difference (on privacy) it seems to me. And I believe long term there is big value to Apple building systems to stop users private data from being abused.
Actually it was a huge tax addition in 2024 (from Europe over dispute about how Ireland had taxed Apple for many years). In 2024 Apple added 14.4 billion in additional taxes accrued over many years.
Car insurance costs more if you have bad credit score. My guess is that they have data to justify that. I think some states may have disallowed this practice.
Minor suggestion: I would make the home page feed show popular stocks (so that it is more interesting to new visitors and also engaging to regular visitors). You could just pick 100 stock symbols or combine that with something like what you are seeing people search for (I would manually check the popular search ones - some may not make sense to add to the home page feed).
It could offer a couple options. One being the main view is like you are there. You see the court in a huge view in your main view. Then, similar, but way better than in person, you have several big views off to the side, for replays, stats, maybe following a view of your favorite player...
I would think they we have a way to make it so your view (switches as the action on the court switches to the other basket). That will have to be a good design but just the idea of something like teleporting from your seat with a great view of this half of the court to now having it on the other half.
And for other sports even better I think. With say soccer/football and football (USA) you can have a big overview (like you are sitting at midfield) but then camera angles for closer view of the action...
I think sports viewing could really be incredible. Figuring out exactly how to do it well will take awhile. But it seems to me the kind of thing Apple could do very well.
I would consider including the text box content that is shown below the video on Youtube. Many videos will say things like "I included the link below..." so having that on say https://hackertube.org/watch/PbmJkMhmrVI would be nice. I can imagine there are issues to consider...
reply