It seems they are going to try to maximize their installed base, build the infrastructure, and try to own everything in between, whether it’s LLM or some other architecture that arises. Owning data centers and an installed base sounds great in theory, but it assumes you can outbuild hyperscalers on infrastructure and that your users will stick around. Data centers are a low margin grind and the installed base in AI isn’t locked in like iPhones. Apple and Google still control the endpoints, and I think they’ll ultimately decide who wins by what they integrate at the OS level.

100% this. Until there is a mechanism to disambiguate between first and last click referrals, it will continue to be an issue.

I'm curious why Amazon doesn't show you in some obvious way what affiliate code your purchase is linked to, if any. I'm imagining something like the way they used to display your Amazon Smile charity if you used that option.

Perhaps they've guessed that it would shock some people to learn how often they inadvertently use affiliate links and they would be discouraged from shopping or find some way to disable the codes.

Or even better give you option to take the affiliate cut as discount. Which would be win for everyone. Affiliate spammers would get knowledge that people gave them money out of charity. Shop would sell more as things are cheaper. And buyers would get cheaper products.

Wait what? :) Are you proposing that amazon should have a “give me a discount on my purchase” check-box on their checkout page? Why would anyone not click that? And if people would click it why would anyone share affiliate links of amazon?

That would completely undermine the incentive structure of the whole structure.

> Which would be win for everyone.

Except of course the content creators. It would not be a win for them.

They would still get cut from those who choose to support them this way. Rest of the people would get discount. There seems to be plenty of people who click affiliate links so creators get money. Those same people would still give the cut to them wouldn't they?

Or then just ban the whole scam.

> Those same people would still give the cut to them wouldn't they?

It is a very different proposition. In the current practice you get the product for the same price as everyone else and the creator gets a small slice of the shop's profit. In the system you are proposing where you could decide to pocket the money it would feel like you are giving the money out of your own pocket to the creator. It literally would make the product more expensive for you to purchase if you decide to not take the discount but give it to the creator. It would feel like charity with weird extra steps and a middle man.

Sure, some people would do it. I guess there are turbo-fans everywhere. But the income from affiliate links would collapse dramatically. Because if there is a button to get a discount easy then people will push the button to get the discount. They will justify it to themselves however they want it.

> Or then just ban the whole scam.

Ban as in with government force? Or ban as in the online shop decides to not engage in affiliate marketing anymore?

The first: ok? Why? I'm not that fussed about it, but I'm also not seeing why this would be a good policy. Or what exactly you want to ban for that matter.

The second: Presumably the webshops made their own calculations that they earn more money with affiliate marketing than without. I don't know how one would do that, but I assume they are not just doing it out of inertia, or goodness of their hearth.

Crawlers rendering JavaScript isn’t good enough if you max out your crawl budget. This is a fundamental problem with CSR and until crawl budget doesn’t matter anymore, it will always be.

They already are. We rarely hire former facebook engineers anymore. They cost too much, most of them have done very little interesting work and of the FAANG companies, they are by far the most entitled.

That's because he had hacks like Shelby Foote trying to convince people that the Civil War wasn't caused by slavery.

No it doesn’t. Everyone with a mild bit of common sense knows what you’re doing

They’ll play along, but be aware that not only have you forgotten their name, you also believe you can fool them into thinking you didn’t

Yeah it's double patronizing. It's worse than just coming clean and shifting the burden to yourself by acknowledging your poor memory skills.

The goals wasn't to relearn their name, but to relearn it while not showing that you forget it. The latter part is what fails...

As rude as lying to save face?

The lie would be for the benefit of the person whose name was forgotten, not to "save face". From what, forgetting a name? Nothing is more human.

I do agree that to lie at all is a terrible idea.

Now I'm curious. If lying in general is a terrible idea, how does the person whose name was forgotten benefit, otherwise what makes the terrible lie worth it?

White lies are confusing things.

Why would you be asking what someone's last name is, especially by asking "what's your name again?"

Neat trick but it shouldn't be the only one you have. Which is to say it isn't the best way to proceed.

Choose bad tools, expect bad outcomes.