CVS leadership are influenced by BS assertions of data scientists. Ground truth doesn’t matter to upper management living across the globe from the problem.
Onsite management is handed a recipe to implement, told someone is showing up to install locks in everything to, not because a specific store might need it but to normalize business operations with their paranoia.
> You think CVS doesnt have granular numbers on shoplifting?
Take a look at what CVS disclosed in official shareholder reports
> Whether they report those publicly is another story
Well, no, if they have evidence of a massive material increase in organized shoplifting and don't disclose that, it's securities fraud. Conversely, if they make false material claims in direct shareholder reports, that's also fraud.
Seems there's no material increase in organized shoplifting, but that doesn't change the claims about regular shoplifting? Seems like you're not actually disputing anything.
> Seems like they would be motivated…to tell the truth about this.
In shareholder disclosures, yes. Which is, incidentally, where they have never made any of the claims the NRF is making! Those have been limited to PR statements with no legal obligations.
Doesn’t matter. They want to normalize employee and customer experience. Think I’ll go with the anecdotes of my friends who managed retail locations for big box stores rather than an HN rando with a confrontational rhetorical style, as if projection is correctness
Your experience is a reflection of their desire to normalize rather than customize
Data is only useful to a point. Generate all the stats you want. Millions of other stats attenuate the usefulness of any given stat, except for those of broad application. Getting super granular is programming equivalent of bike shedding and yak shaving.
Personalized metaspaces, game worlds, content without paying a rent seeker copyright holder.
Education and research without gatekeepers in academia and industry complaining about their book sales or prestige titles being obsoleted
Whole lot of uses cases that break us out of having to kowtow to experts who were merely born before us trying to monopolize exploration of science and technology
To that end I’m working on a GPU accelerated client backed by local AI, with NERFs and Gaussian splatting built in.
The upside to being an EE with MSc in math; most of my money comes from engineering real things. I don’t have skin in the cloud CRUD app/API game and don’t see a reason to spend money propping up middle men who, given my skills and abilities, don’t add value
Programmers can go explore syntax art in their parent’s basement again. Tired of 1970s semantics and everyone with a DSL thinking that’s the best thing to happen to computing as a field of inquiry ever.
Like all industries big tech is monopolized by aging rent seekers. Disrupt by divesting from it is my play now.
Forgot re-creation/preservstion of existing content I paid for by translating footage into physics, color, and geometry models, map them to my clients render pipeline. Level 1-1 of New Super Mario Bros is pretty much completely translated. No copyright problems if I don’t distribute it :)
Like I said, most of my money is wfh design of branded gadgets. Not really the sort to care about the reach of others; if content industry collapses because people don’t need to spend money on it, meh. More interested in advancing computing. Pour money into R&D of organic computers, rather than web apps running on the same old gear with more HP under the hood. yawn
I want bioengineered kaiju sized dogs and drug glands that stoke hallucination I’m on another planet.
Humanity is a generational cup and string. Time to snip the 1900s loose.
Bots gonna bot. So far they’ve not caught any of mine I setup this last year.
Each bot sticks to a context, simulates some time wasting doom scrolling at random to look human, posts affiliate links otherwise with AI generating the message payload in response to a Tweet by its mark.
I love how easy the internet made it to fleece potato brains
Disbelief in specific magical thinking of ancient people and belief in the magical thinking of ancient peoples are not all that similar.
Though I see how they can look that way when you intentionally omit details about the claims of either side, as human discourse is reduced to Tweet size comments of negligible value.
Right but people are complex beings susceptible to social memes. Science fundamentally is a tool, but so is writing, which was used to establish and disseminate religion (in the beginning was the Word). The bible might contain wisdom and good lessons, but it's value is obfuscated and degraded by fundamentalist fanatics. The same can happen with the products of science.
