Everything is Shit: Tracking the Great Enshittening

[Hornius Emeritus 12389]

The quality of bronze medals is enshittening:

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/us-skateboarder-nyjah-huston-reveals-bronze-medals-deterioration-not-high-quality-you-would-think

 

[Deej 76401]

3 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

The quality of bronze medals is enshittening:

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/us-skateboarder-nyjah-huston-reveals-bronze-medals-deterioration-not-high-quality-you-would-think

 

They should have tried harder in their events. 

[Hank Kingsley 20599]

 

[Incredulity 11446]

[Parliament 14086]

Gonna have to sort of disagree with you there.  Somebody is gonna figure out self-driving cars and when they do, it'll be awesome.

[Snake Diggity 4607]

Is this the thread where we get to vent about shit that used to be cool and now sucks?  Schlitterbahn sure seemed enshittified yesterday.  Only half the park was open (there were no signs posted to let anyone know this, when we asked a worker they said (it’s on the website”), even though tickets were full price.  In that half that was open, the largest tube ride was closed.  The most visible ride was out of order for half the day.  The wait for the only 4 operating rides of any consequence was over 90 minutes all day long.  There were no signs anywhere that indicated how long the wait was estimated to be.  The 2 lazy rivers were utterly packed and the water looked like they were shooting a scene from The Impossible.  I paid $24 for 2 funnel cakes that were the literal worst tasting thing I’ve eaten in the last 5 years.

We've had season passes since last year and just during that time the number of operating rides at any given time has decreased and the cost of concessions has increased.  Yesterday sucked.

[Nivek 16772]

16 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Gonna have to sort of disagree with you there.  Somebody is gonna figure out self-driving cars and when they do, it'll be awesome.

Of course, but there will be some humor and horror stories along the way.  Might as well enjoy the first part.

[HenryJames 65852]

13 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Is this the thread where we get to vent about shit that used to be cool and now sucks?  Schlitterbahn sure seemed enshittified yesterday.  Only half the park was open (there were no signs posted to let anyone know this, when we asked a worker they said (it’s on the website”), even though tickets were full price.  In that half that was open, the largest tube ride was closed.  The most visible ride was out of order for half the day.  The wait for the only 4 operating rides of any consequence was over 90 minutes all day long.  There were no signs anywhere that indicated how long the wait was estimated to be.  The 2 lazy rivers were utterly packed and the water looked like they were shooting a scene from The Impossible.  I paid $24 for 2 funnel cakes that were the literal worst tasting thing I’ve eaten in the last 5 years.

We've had season passes since last year and just during that time the number of operating rides at any given time has decreased and the cost of concessions has increased.  Yesterday sucked.

Anyone get decapitated?

[General Specific 3214]

One Baby Ruth placed strategically in the lazy river, and you could have the whole place to yourself!

[Vegas64 655]

On 8/13/2024 at 1:50 PM, Snake Diggity said:

Is this the thread where we get to vent about shit that used to be cool and now sucks?  Schlitterbahn sure seemed enshittified yesterday.  Only half the park was open (there were no signs posted to let anyone know this, when we asked a worker they said (it’s on the website”), even though tickets were full price.  In that half that was open, the largest tube ride was closed.  The most visible ride was out of order for half the day.  The wait for the only 4 operating rides of any consequence was over 90 minutes all day long.  There were no signs anywhere that indicated how long the wait was estimated to be.  The 2 lazy rivers were utterly packed and the water looked like they were shooting a scene from The Impossible.  I paid $24 for 2 funnel cakes that were the literal worst tasting thing I’ve eaten in the last 5 years.

We've had season passes since last year and just during that time the number of operating rides at any given time has decreased and the cost of concessions has increased.  Yesterday sucked.

Sounds horrible. Didn't PE buy out Schlitterbahn? If so, checks out.

Six Flags sucks post-M&A with Cedar as well.

And just got back from Disneyland last month and it sucked too.

Theme Parks, like leisure travel in general, is too democratized and available (over-crowded and long waits) to be fun anymore. Get off my lawn.

[Snake Diggity 4607]

4 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

Sounds horrible. Didn't PE buy out Schlitterbahn? If so, checks out.

Six Flags sucks post-M&A with Cedar as well.

And just got back from Disneyland last month and it sucked too.

Theme Parks, like leisure travel in general, is too democratized and available (over-crowded and long waits) to be fun anymore. Get off my lawn.

I am pretty sure the PE firm that bought Schlitterbahn turned around and sold them to six flags.

 

I totally agree that it is too democratized.  I was thinking that exact thing when we were there.  I would easily pay 50% more for there to be 30% less people but I guess the math overall doesn’t work.  They would rather make a few extra bucks and have everyone leave there unhappy than not milk it and have people actually enjoy their product.

[Zeus 5925]

 

[wildcat09 29146]

Oh good, Zeus posted a video. I’m sure it won’t be insane.

[956 Worldwide 34242]

12 hours ago, smokebomb said:

In case any of you use the Anova Sous Vide cooker to cook their steaks, Anova is implementing two major changes:

#1 - they are going to start charging $10 a year for Anova app access for any accounts created after 8/21:

https://anovaculinary.com/blogs/blog/update-existing-users-grandfathered-in-new-users-will-pay-a-small-app-subscription-fee?srsltid=AfmBOor0R0kHCR4_qHtOBxkGCHzhZH-T_VIfBK3an4L3XL8gx-zdF94P

#2 - they are going to disable Bluetooth/WiFi access from the app to older cooker models next September. You’ll be able to manually set the cooker on the cooker display but not through the app: 

https://support.anovaculinary.com/hc/en-us/articles/27322197681165-The-Original-Anova-Precision-Cooker-Bluetooth-Bluetooth-WIFI-remote-connectivity-sunsetting#:~:text=Anova will be shutting down,Cooker on September 28th%2C 2025.

I’m really disappointed as the product worked perfectly & they are only making changes to try & squeeze in a few extra bucks. It will still function but in a degraded state. 

Cross posting from the steak thread. This has all the elements.  Subscription model for a kitchen appliance.  Selling consumers something that works and then breaking it so you can try to squeeze more money from them.

[PhillyD 1257]

I was going to cross post this but you beat me to it.  This is pathetic and I guess the next step is to disable the device completely if you don't subscribe.

[956 Worldwide 34242]

44 minutes ago, PhillyD said:

I was going to cross post this but you beat me to it.  This is pathetic and I guess the next step is to disable the device completely if you don't subscribe.

I looked these things up and they cost between 90-200 bucks on Amazon. Imagine buying a kitchen device and then paying the entire sales price every year to get full functionality.  Unreal. 

[ClubWhatever 12082]

On 8/15/2024 at 3:02 PM, Snake Diggity said:

I would easily pay 50% more for there to be 30% less people but I guess the math overall doesn’t work.

There needs to be a Premium Economy Schlitterban.  

[HenryJames 65852]

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/06/instant-pot-bankrupt-private-equity/674414/

[thunderlounge 7705]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I looked these things up and they cost between 90-200 bucks on Amazon. Imagine buying a kitchen device and then paying the entire sales price every year to get full functionality.  Unreal. 

All so their stock price can go up half a point. 
 

Why should a company expect employees to act in the best interest of the business, when management shits all over it?

[HenryJames 65852]

Ex-Google CEO says successful AI startups can steal IP and hire lawyers to ‘clean up the mess’

“But if nobody uses your product, it doesn’t matter that you stole all the content,” Eric Schmidt said during a recent talk at Stanford that has been taken offline.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/14/24220658/google-eric-schmidt-stanford-talk-ai-startups-openai

[thunderlounge 7705]

And it isn't even true AI! Just pretty much pattern matching against an algorithm. Yet the masses suck it down like the next coming of Christ.

When it can write and implement its own subroutines, and can "self-heal" (software issues, not physical), then come find me.

 

 

[Captainant 27251]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

Ex-Google CEO says successful AI startups can steal IP and hire lawyers to ‘clean up the mess’

“But if nobody uses your product, it doesn’t matter that you stole all the content,” Eric Schmidt said during a recent talk at Stanford that has been taken offline.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/14/24220658/google-eric-schmidt-stanford-talk-ai-startups-openai

@TwiceHorn what's your thoughts on this "lol k we'll pay the fine" scheme of business plan?

[TwiceHorn 31089]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

@TwiceHorn what's your thoughts on this "lol k we'll pay the fine" scheme of business plan?

Google fucking sucks when IP gets in their way.  As if they don't any other time.

It's called "efficient infringement," usually applied to patents, and it's not entirely new, but Google is real good at it.  Or maybe, if not good at it, does it a lot to the point it's their business model.

The idea is to calculate the cost of infringing and being held to account for it and see if it exceeds the cost to your business plan of taking a license or avoiding the patent.  ETA:  Given that Google uses high-dollar lawyers and is quite litigious, appealing and attempting to retry everything, they incur tens of millions in attorneys fees, and they still often lose at the trial level because they look mighty close to willful infringers.  I actually doubt that their efficient infringement calculus saves them any money, and probably costs them quite a bit.  There's a certain arrogance that attends the whole thing, as you see from the above.

Of course, that incents every patent-weakening remedy (IPR, etc.) and arguing patent-weakening positions in court.  In the micro case, it hammers little guys with patents, in the macro case it does incalculable damage to the system as a whole.  It's swinging the pendulum the other way, in an "overcorrection" style, but in google's case, very intentionally.

Some of this was done in the name of stopping trolls wielding shitty software patents but the problem with stopping trolls is that in many cases, they are indistinguishable from little guys, including universities.  Big baby/bathwater problem there.  And the shitty software patents filed in the 80s are pretty much completely expired.

The term comes from "efficient breach of contract," which is the circumstance in which it is less painful to breach a contract and suffer the remedies than to go on with performance.  So it is justifiable economically and that is really all contracts are about.  And the non-breaching party is made whole according to "the rules."

But the economics of patents/IP and patent/IP infringement are not as straightforward as with contracts, so I don't think this works out to be justifiable.  There's certainly a moral disgust that attends it, but I'm not sure that has a real place here, either.

Edited August 19 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31089]

Edit.

Google is a major participant in the US IP system, particularly as a litigant.  During the Obama administration, one of their senior IP counsel, Michelle Lee, was Commissioner of Patents and was decidedly anti-patent.  Obviously, Commissioners come from the patient "industry" or profession, but she stood out.

Here's an article about Google's litigation efforts regarding expert testimony on damages, and particularly the issue of apportionment. https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/08/defense-support-testimony.html

Apportionment is tricky, an example is when a cell phone or other device is determined to infringe because it contains, say, an infringing modem chip.  The phone costs, say, $300, but the modem chip cost Google $30.  Google would like the royalty counted as a percentage of $30, but that doesn't account for the benefit they obtain from infringement, while the patent owner would prefer it be calculated on the $300.

Obviously, in most cases, the modem chip doesn't drive the sale of the phone, but without it, Google couldn't charge quite as much if they couldn't use it, maybe $280 instead of $300.  So, the royalty should be some percentage of that $20 revenue/profit delta that comes from infringement.

In this particular case, it's a little different because the patent owner may license its whole patent portfolio, consisting of numerous patents. But Google was accused of infringing only one of the patents, so arguably the royalty rates, 10% of sales, or $1/unit or whatever, should have been reduced because only one of maybe 100.  But, often, only one or a few of those patents is infringed by anyone, so it drives most if not all of the royalty revenue.

And expert witnesses like @sidis have to explain to a jury what that percentage should be and to what base (full retail price, some part of it, etc.) that percentage should be applied to.  This is called apportionment.

The law (stemming from a case called Daubert) requires that expert witness testimony be based on accepted principles, otherwise a jury doesn't get to hear it.  That makes perfect sense.

Here, Google and other bigtech defendants are arguing that witnesses that testify to big apportionment numbers should be categorically excluded from testimony.  And, that's bullshit.  It's fairly easy to argue to a jury that a model based on full retail price and a large percentage, or here more patents than the one infringed, overcompensates for infringement and such a damage model should be rejected by the jury in a specific case.

The reason Google is so concerned about this is that juries tend to be mad at them for their technical arrogance by the time they're considering damage testimony, so they are fairly likely to accept the patent owner's theory of damages, including a big base and a big percentage.  

This is key to making their efficient infringement strategy pay out.

Yes, this is patent stuff, but IP is pretty much IP.

 

Edited August 19 by TwiceHorn

[Hamttx 419]

On 8/13/2024 at 8:20 AM, Deej said:

They should have tried harder in their events. 

Thats cold, funny as hell, but cold..

[TwiceHorn 31089]

Another thoughtoid.

If Google was really serious about "efficient infringement," when sued, they'd come into court and admit or stipulate to infringement and move on to wrestling on damages.  Hell, maybe even stipulate to damages.  And save a shit ton of attorneys fees.

But they don't do that.  They litigate the shit of of things, including carrying water for other bigtech defendants, as demonstrated above.  They are like Trump delaying things, inevitable.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbusiness/big-tech-s-abuse-of-the-patent-system-must-end-take-it-from-me-i-ve-fought-google-over-ip-for-years/ar-AA1oxzuN

Edited August 19 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27251]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Edit.

Google is a major participant in the US IP system, particularly as a litigant.  During the Obama administration, one of their senior IP counsel, Michelle Lee, was Commissioner of Patents and was decidedly anti-patent.  Obviously, Commissioners come from the patient "industry" or profession, but she stood out.

Here's an article about Google's litigation efforts regarding expert testimony on damages, and particularly the issue of apportionment. https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/08/defense-support-testimony.html

Apportionment is tricky, an example is when a cell phone or other device is determined to infringe because it contains, say, an infringing modem chip.  The phone costs, say, $300, but the modem chip cost Google $30.  Google would like the royalty counted as a percentage of $30, but that doesn't account for the benefit they obtain from infringement, while the patent owner would prefer it be calculated on the $300.

Obviously, in most cases, the modem chip doesn't drive the sale of the phone, but without it, Google couldn't charge quite as much if they couldn't use it, maybe $280 instead of $300.  So, the royalty should be some percentage of that $20 revenue/profit delta that comes from infringement.

In this particular case, it's a little different because the patent owner may license its whole patent portfolio, consisting of numerous patents. But Google was accused of infringing only one of the patents, so arguably the royalty rates, 10% of sales, or $1/unit or whatever, should have been reduced because only one of maybe 100.  But, often, only one or a few of those patents is infringed by anyone, so it drives most if not all of the royalty revenue.

And expert witnesses like @sidis have to explain to a jury what that percentage should be and to what base (full retail price, some part of it, etc.) that percentage should be applied to.  This is called apportionment.

The law (stemming from a case called Daubert) requires that expert witness testimony be based on accepted principles, otherwise a jury doesn't get to hear it.  That makes perfect sense.

Here, Google and other bigtech defendants are arguing that witnesses that testify to big apportionment numbers should be categorically excluded from testimony.  And, that's bullshit.  It's fairly easy to argue to a jury that a model based on full retail price and a large percentage, or here more patents than the one infringed, overcompensates for infringement and such a damage model should be rejected by the jury in a specific case.

The reason Google is so concerned about this is that juries tend to be mad at them for their technical arrogance by the time they're considering damage testimony, so they are fairly likely to accept the patent owner's theory of damages, including a big base and a big percentage.  

This is key to making their efficient infringement strategy pay out.

Yes, this is patent stuff, but IP is pretty much IP.

 

 

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Another thoughtoid.

If Google was really serious about "efficient infringement," when sued, they'd come into court and admit or stipulate to infringement and move on to wrestling on damages.  Hell, maybe even stipulate to damages.  And save a shit ton of attorneys fees.

But they don't do that.  They litigate the shit of of things, including carrying water for other bigtech defendants, as demonstrated above.  They are like Trump delaying things, inevitable.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbusiness/big-tech-s-abuse-of-the-patent-system-must-end-take-it-from-me-i-ve-fought-google-over-ip-for-years/ar-AA1oxzuN

It's wild how the system is such that if you're big enough you can win by default through burying the opposition, or delay things indefinitely so they they never actually face a consequence. 

It's unfortunate that the patent system is so commonly used to fight innovation and competition, and it's exploited to steal once you're big enough 

[TwiceHorn 31089]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

 

It's wild how the system is such that if you're big enough you can win by default through burying the opposition, or delay things indefinitely so they they never actually face a consequence. 

It's unfortunate that the patent system is so commonly used to fight innovation and competition, and it's exploited to steal once you're big enough 

And, as a highly technical outfit that generates and owns a lot of IP, you'd think Google would be a bit more "sanguine" or something about IP and less-self-serving while damaging the system for everyone.

At some point, it's got to come back to bite them.

[thunderlounge 7705]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

If Google was really serious about "efficient infringement," when sued, they'd come into court and admit or stipulate to infringement and move on to wrestling on damages.  Hell, maybe even stipulate to damages.  And save a shit ton of attorneys fees.

I can’t imagine google doesn’t have lawyers in their employ. So they’re paying them either way. Might as well have em in court. 
 

[gofuckyourself 8099]

On 8/12/2024 at 1:45 PM, Parliament said:

 

Or go out and talk to people and make a new friend?

Nah, let's pull further back into our technological cocoon of false safety and even faker experiences. That'll turn out well.

[TwiceHorn 31089]

23 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

I can’t imagine google doesn’t have lawyers in their employ. So they’re paying them either way. Might as well have em in court. 
 

Google has tons of in-house lawyers yes.  They do not use them for litigation.

They pay firms 1000++/hour for partner level litigators and a minimum of about 5-600/hour for junior level lawyers to staff a case.  And these firms do not have sparing or moderate billing practices.

[HenryJames 65852]

[NeverMarryAStripper 21780]

I foresee an uptick in homeless people having their identity stolen

[TwiceHorn 31089]

Also, with regard to "efficient infringement" as a general notion.  In contracts, efficient breach is an acceptable and accepted thing because a contract is entered into voluntarily and both parties accept the terms of performance and breach, so they bargained for whatever happens, for whatever reason.

IP infringement is a tort.  And that means it is an involuntary "relationship" between two parties that causes injury to one party (and possibly advantage to the uninjured party as is often the case in IP infringement).

Because of the involuntary nature of the "transaction" in the case of a tort, there is a notion that intentional injuries or those with a more malicious intent should be compensated more generously than those injuries inflicted due to negligence or unknowingly. I'm not sure that's an injection of morality so much the economic reality that more compensation is due for an involuntary injury than one that is bargained-for, as in the case of a contract.

Regardless, I think efficient infringement stinks to high heaven.

[thunderlounge 7705]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Google has tons of in-house lawyers yes.  They do not use them for litigation.

They pay firms 1000++/hour for partner level litigators and a minimum of about 5-600/hour for junior level lawyers to staff a case.  And these firms do not have sparing or moderate billing practices.

Is there reason to this? Seems counter-intuitive to me. 
 

I can see needing a specialist now and then, but that seems like an awful lot of waste.

[Pato del Muerto 52239]

My first thought is that litigating everything has a chilling effect on some IP owners’ willingness to go to court, knowing the expense it would be. If google just agreed and paid every claim, all legitimate and many questionable claims would be made. 

[TwiceHorn 31089]

6 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

My first thought is that litigating everything has a chilling effect on some IP owners’ willingness to go to court, knowing the expense it would be. If google just agreed and paid every claim, all legitimate and many questionable claims would be made. 

To my mind, there is a difference between vigorously defending claims and a business model of saying fuck it we'll infringe whatever we want and sort it out later. Which is exactly what is stated above. 

[TwiceHorn 31089]

6 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

Is there reason to this? Seems counter-intuitive to t
 

I can see needing a specialist now and then, but that seems like an awful lot of waste.

It's the reality. The only corporations/businesses of any size that attempt to litigate using in-house counsel are insurance companies. And even then, they're often assembled into something quite resembling a law firm where everyone is a salaried employee of the insurance company. 

In-house people handle the day to day legal matters of the entity, but rarely litigation. 

[chainsaw 9815]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's the reality. The only corporations/businesses of any size that attempt to litigate using in-house counsel are insurance companies. And even then, they're often assembled into something quite resembling a law firm where everyone is a salaried employee of the insurance company. 

In-house people handle the day to day legal matters of the entity, but rarely litigation. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31089]

4 hours ago, chainsaw said:

 

Yeah, good luck with that, Elon, you rube.

A big part of the problem is that the litigation of a major business ebbs and flows.  You have to have specialists for IP, environmental, mass torts, so on and so forth and they can't keep those groups busy year-round.

And, to retain good ones, they'll have to pay in the mid six figures.

[chainsaw 9815]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, good luck with that, Elon, you rube.

A big part of the problem is that the litigation of a major business ebbs and flows.  You have to have specialists for IP, environmental, mass torts, so on and so forth and they can't keep those groups busy year-round.

And, to retain good ones, they'll have to pay in the mid six figures.

counterpoint: they are extremely hardcore

[Biff Tannen 45439]

4 hours ago, chainsaw said:

 

 

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, good luck with that, Elon, you rube.

A big part of the problem is that the litigation of a major business ebbs and flows.  You have to have specialists for IP, environmental, mass torts, so on and so forth and they can't keep those groups busy year-round.

And, to retain good ones, they'll have to pay in the mid six figures.

Tweet is over 2 years old. I’m sure it went well though. 

[Hefeweizen 5306]

David Komie is tanned, rested, and baked!  Give him a call for hardcore…

[Biff Tannen 45439]

Boss told my team today to use co-pilot to make emails more convincing to customers. Um, no. I can actually write. I’m good. 

[Deej 76401]

20 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Boss told my team today to use co-pilot to make emails more convincing to customers. Um, no. I can actually write. I’m good. 

 

[Captainant 27251]

On 8/19/2024 at 10:41 AM, HenryJames said:

This is what excessive profiteering looks like

[crash_davis 23076]

Dynamic pricing and subscriptions for basic shit will hopefully make people revolt and piss on CEOs.

[immamac 42400]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

Dynamic pricing and subscriptions for basic shit will hopefully make people revolt and piss on CEOs.

The biggest thing holding consumers back is themselves. 

Mark Cuban started that fair pharmaceutical drug company thing and you would think it would put everyone out of business, but nope. Stupid consumer doesn't want to change anything. 

[Captainant 27251]

5 minutes ago, immamac said:

Mark Cuban started that fair pharmaceutical drug company thing and you would think it would put everyone out of business, but nope. Stupid consumer doesn't want to change anything. 

TBH the largest demo getting recurring prescriptions is almost certainly olds. When my wife or I have a prescription it's for a temporary thing, and we'd much prefer the in person pharmacy for speed of service. When my grandma gets her arthritis meds, she's been going to the same Costco pharmacy for a decade and by God she ain't gonna change now. 

[Biff Tannen 45439]

15 minutes ago, immamac said:

The biggest thing holding consumers back is themselves. 

Mark Cuban started that fair pharmaceutical drug company thing and you would think it would put everyone out of business, but nope. Stupid consumer doesn't want to change anything. 

This is why they do it.  They know they can get away with it because the general public has no clue how anything works.