Also zeppo@sh.itjust.works. Not a lot of Zeppos out here.
- 1 Post
- 72 Comments
It’s a native feature of the device that allows its user to get enormous amounts of attention, in real life and subsequently online, by simply wearing it in public.
Sounds horrible. I guess I’m not someone who seeks attention at any cost like some people, it public is the last situation I’d use this thing in. I would feel like a complete dumbass wearing it at a coffee shop and waving my hands around.
The purchase price already exceeded the real market value, which is why the former board was persistent in pushing the deal’s completion. A normal price at the time would have been about 20% less. Estimates since then have been even lower, like maybe $20 billion. So most of the loss is in market value, not cash expenditure or lost revenue.
In my experience, self-checkout started with the weight sensors, rather than adding them later. I’ve noticed some stores have a system now without the weight thing, which probably cuts down on confusing and time-consuming error situations, but it makes it seem chaotic. My parents use them in the most fucked up way - leave everything in the cart, scan stuff, bag it, then put it in the cart, and I’m just WHAT? Aren’t they going to accuse you of stealing? Some walmarts aggressively pursue claims of theft from self checkout, like in the case of this lady who was awarded 2.1 million after being accused of stealing, which she said was not true. This article details the story of a lady who said she was arrested after not scanning things by accident, and the article notes “Sixty-two other people were cited and released by police at the same Tucson Walmart between January 2021 and April 2022.”
During the civil trial, which lasted about three weeks, the judge criticized Walmart for the “intentional loss” of the security camera footage, according to court records. The judge, James T. Patterson, said that the court would advise the jury that the videotapes “were destroyed by the defendants with the intent” to deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of seeing them “and that the jury therefore is to presume that the content of the missing videos would be adverse” to the defendants.
Walmart also is starting to use ‘AI’ to detect self checkout theft, which I’m sure will be foolproof and work out great.
And if you’re wondering which item causes the most problems, it’s milk. O’Herlihy explains, “People find it hard to scan milk … Sometimes they get frustrated and they just don’t scan it.”
What?
Anyway, I’m sure they love not paying employees to do this, but it seems like more trouble than it’s worth.
I’m aware of the pressure sensitivity thing causing a false low, and also how sensors have a delay from reading interstitial fluid. I’ve been doing this for 3 1/2 years, as noted. Even with the gibbering of the sensor, I maintain over 95% in range, so I feel like I am fairly attentive and well informed.
I’ve had one for about 3 1/2 years and that’s not my experience, unfortunately. Some of the sensors are right on from the start and stay that way… maybe 30% of them. Some are off when they start and take 1-2 days to start reading correctly. In the meantime, it might say I’m 140 when my meters say 110, or 110 when my meters say 140, or at worst, Dexcom says 90 when I am obviously low and I check and it’s 65. Some sensors are just whacked out and unpredictable, like I’ll be hanging at 100 and it shows a quick drop to 90, 75, 65, and I’m uh, what? And check with a meter and it’s 110. The in-between sensors, they might be reading 30 points off for 3 days before I decide to calibrate and find out oh, it’s been telling me 80 when I’m really at 110. So, it’s always worth confirming.
Dexcom’s own instructions say to never do a ‘correction’, meaning insulin or carbs, without double checking with a meter ‘if your symptoms don’t match the reading’. I can’t always tell whether I’m low or high or normal, so that means realistically, it’s good to double-check. I’ve had times where I was correcting at ‘80’ up to 120 repeatedly for days and once I calibrated it, I found out I had really been ‘correcting’ from 110 to 160.
Another related confusion in academia recently is the ‘AI detector’. It could easily be defeated with minor rewrites, if they were even accurate in the first place. My favorite misconception is there was a story of a professor who told students “I asked ChatGPT if it wrote this, and it said yes” which is just really not how it works.
This is true and well-stated. Mainly what I wish people would understand is there are current appropriate uses, like ‘rewrite my marketing email’, but generating information that could result in great harm if inaccurate is an inappropriate use. It’s all about the specific model, though - if you had a ChatGPT system trained extensively on medical information, it would result in greater accuracy, but still the information would need expert human review before any decision were made. Mainly I wish the media had been more responsible and accurate in portraying these systems to the public.
It’s not merely a preconception. It’s a rather obvious and well-known limitation of these systems. What I am decrying is that some people, from apparent ignorance, think things like “ChatGPT can give a reliable cancer treatment plan!” or “here, I’ll have it write a legal brief and not even check it for accuracy”. But sure, I agree with you, minus the needless sarcasm. It’s useful to prove or disprove even absurd hypotheses. And clearly people need to be definitely told that ChatGPT is not always factual, so hopefully this helps.
I’m still confused that people don’t realize this. It’s not an oracle. It’s a program that generates sentences word by word based on statistical analysis, with no concept of fact checking. It’s even worse that someone actually did a study instead of simply acknowledging or realizing that ChatGPT is happy to just make stuff up.
Some dumbass made a country song with the usual horrifyingly cliched sort of lyrics, in this case lines such as
”Try that in a small town/ See how far ya make it down the road/ Around here, we take care of our own.”
“Got a gun that my granddad gave me/ They say one day they’re gonna round up/ Well that shit might fly in the city/ Good luck.”
The problem is where the video was set, and contents (many modern protests). WP sums it up as
Accusations of racism prompted a country music channel to pull the video, which is set at the site of an infamous lynching and race riot. But Republicans are embracing Aldean.
I had no idea btw, if it helps I searched DDG for “small town country music” and then went to the News tab.
English- •
- 1Y
- •
Pretty sure I was able to rearrange icons on my IPod Touch 4 in 2010.