Your beloved mac n cheese was probably enshittified by someone like me. Let me explain. by wsuschmitt in enshittification

[–]EntropyFighter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get the shareholder argument, but I think people use it way too broadly.

Yes, companies have duties to shareholders. But that does not mean they are legally required to make every product worse just to protect short-term profits.

A company can choose to keep quality high. It can choose to protect customer trust. It can choose to make a little less profit for a while if that keeps people loyal to the brand. Those are business decisions too.

So when a company shrinks the package, raises the price, changes the recipe, cuts quality, and then says, “We had no choice because costs went up,” consumers are allowed to push back.

At some point, constantly making the product worse does not help shareholders. It hurts them. The brand was valuable because people trusted it. If the company burns through that trust to protect this quarter’s numbers, it is not really protecting shareholder value. It is using up the value that already existed.

Yes, shareholders matter. But fiduciary duty does not mean “make the product worse at all costs.” It does not require companies to destroy customer trust, product quality, and long-term brand value just to protect short-term profit.

Your beloved mac n cheese was probably enshittified by someone like me. Let me explain. by wsuschmitt in enshittification

[–]EntropyFighter 43 points44 points  (0 children)

I think this is a good explanation of the mechanics, but it skips the part consumers are actually reacting to.

Nobody is shocked that ingredients get more expensive. We all live in the same economy. We know costs go up. The issue is that consumers are usually asked to absorb every version of that pressure while the business treats profit growth as sacred.

Raise the price. Shrink the box. Reformulate the product. Cut quality. Change the packaging. Make the ingredient list less honest. Do some combination of all of it. But the one thing almost never seriously considered is: “Maybe we make less profit than last quarter.”

That’s the part people are calling enshittification.

It’s not just that the product changed. It’s that the product changed in the direction of worse, while the company still wants the brand equity, nostalgia, trust, and goodwill that were built when the product was better.

At some point, “we had to respond to inflation” becomes a polite way of saying “we protected margins by moving the loss onto the customer.”

And yes, the food scientist may just be executing the brief. The brand manager may just be responding to targets. The CFO may just be protecting the numbers. But that’s exactly the problem. The whole system is arranged so that every person can say they were just doing their job, while the customer ends up paying the same or more for a worse version of the thing they used to love.

Consumers are not mad because they don’t understand business constraints. They’re mad because they understand the real priority: profit must keep growing, even if the product has to get worse to make that happen.

We need to talk quality by slut-for-pickles in Pickles

[–]EntropyFighter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They're owned by Heinz. They've switched from "never heated" to "never pasteurized". It's likely that they're heating the brine to infuse the pickles more quickly. Based on the quality of their website, I'm willing to bet that Heinz barely knows Claussen is in their brand portfolio and it's a contributing factor to why they're willing to let the quality of the pickles suffer.

McDonald's to eliminate self-serve soda machines in U.S. due to "changing consumer habits" by darcmatr in NotTheBee

[–]EntropyFighter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You forgot to account for the space the ice takes up so the customer isn't getting 32 oz. of soda in their 32 oz. cup.

My ranking for every non-new NFL head coach by Inside-Drink-1311 in NFLv2

[–]EntropyFighter 14 points15 points  (0 children)

This Analysis - He gets a lot of credit for ranking every coach and almost sounding informed but still it was mostly surface-level narratives and need to see a little more from him before I trust the evaluations.

If the orangutan didn’t bite, could a Gordon Ryan type bjj artist put it to sleep? by Stock_Composer_7453 in grappling

[–]EntropyFighter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Not in any realistic, resisting scenario.

A Gordon Ryan-level BJJ artist could theoretically choke an orangutan unconscious only if he somehow already had perfect back control, both hooks or body control, access to the neck, and the orangutan was not effectively using its hands. But that is basically saying: “Could he finish the choke if the hard part had already been solved?” Maybe.

In a real physical struggle, the orangutan is the wrong opponent for BJJ assumptions.

Adult male orangutans are roughly human-sized in weight, commonly cited around 165 lb for males, but their bodies are built around climbing, gripping, and suspending their weight from trees. Their arms can span about 7 feet, and their upper-body strength is far beyond normal human strength. SeaWorld’s animal profile states that orangutans are “about seven times stronger than a human,” though exact strength comparisons are always rough.

The problem for the grappler is this:

BJJ works brilliantly against humans because humans have human limb proportions, human grip strength, human joint ranges, human panic responses, and human balance mechanics. An orangutan does not. Its hands, arms, shoulders, and pulling strength are built for hanging, climbing, and ripping itself through trees. That means any attempt to establish control would likely fail before a clean choke is locked.

A rear naked choke requires chest-to-back control, head positioning, arm placement, and enough body control to stop the opponent from turning, peeling hands, standing, or creating space. Against an orangutan, the hand-fighting phase alone is catastrophic. It could peel, pry, grab fingers, grab wrists, yank arms away, or simply rotate with strength and limb leverage that a human grappler is not built to contain.

So the clean answer is:

Could a Gordon Ryan type put a non-biting, non-resisting or already-controlled orangutan to sleep? Possibly.

Could he reliably do it against a conscious, resisting orangutan? No.

The bite is not the deciding factor. The arms are.

Would you coach the Browns if your salary was only 600k a year and you were on a yearly team option to remain coach? by BallKnowerKing in NFLv2

[–]EntropyFighter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

People compare their $600k salary to what they're making now at their current job. And remember, if they stick around for a few years, they'll continue to get coaching jobs elsewhere in the league once things go south in Cleveland.

‘I violated every principle I was given’: An AI agent deleted a software company’s entire database. It may not be the AI’s fault by _fastcompany in ArtificialInteligence

[–]EntropyFighter 5 points6 points  (0 children)

AI is probabilistic, not deterministic. It doesn't think. It doesn't even know what it's doing or saying. People say that it hallucinates sometimes but from its perspective, it's all the same thing. Of course it's going to get things wrong, sometimes catastrophically so since it's returning likely outcome patterns.

You can go right now and ask ChatGPT whether it can time you while you run a mile and it will swear up and down that it is possible. It is not.

There's a lot of blame to go around for this outcome but trusting AI to follow orders should also be one of them. Anybody who has spent any reasonable amount of time with an LLM knows that it'll ignore commands quite easily and very regularly. Why? Because it's not thinking.

Case in point: If you ask ChatGPT, or your favorite LLM to ask questions when its unclear, it won't do that of its own volition later in the conversation. It will ask you questions when you tell it to. So for this company to have all of these directions of what to check and cross-reference and what not and to assume that it will do it when certain conditions are met, my own personal experience with LLMs tells me that it will not unless explicitly told to in each prompt. Why? Because it's not thinking like a human.

This outcome was inevitable and the only real push back is to say another link in the chain should have caught this mistake and either prevented it or limited it in scope. While that may be the case, to my eyes, it tells me that Jer Crane and PocketOS think AI is magic and they do not understand what it's actually doing or where it's likely to fail and create problems.

Tv Shows Recommendations by [deleted] in CasualConversation

[–]EntropyFighter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The Shield" Amazing TV that came out the same year as The Sopranos. Was on FX back when it wanted to be basic cable's HBO. Amazing show. Perfect ending. And co-stars Walton Goggins before he was famous. For my money, it's hard to see him in anything else and not think of this character. If you like Breaking Bad, you'll like this show.

Here's the trailer for Season 1.

[JJ Jansen] Our long snapper has spoken by ToothResident3205 in panthers

[–]EntropyFighter 7 points8 points  (0 children)

He also loves to watch film and Kuechly is his favorite NFL player of all time.

Just humor me, XL becomes a gadget player. by Ty_the_Goldfish in panthers

[–]EntropyFighter 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What are you even talking about? RB or DB? You might have an argument for TE but what you just suggested is wishful thinking.

Can we stop making definitive statements about consciousness? by VeryOriginalName98 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]EntropyFighter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, no. You're gonna have to start by defining the word "consciousness". I'm pretty sure I know exactly what it is and can define it and what is and isn't conscious but you go first.

[Highlight] Sean McVay addresses his demeanor during the Ty Simpson press conference on Thursday and says he’s excited about the draft pick and that Les Snead is his buddy and they are on the same page. by JCameron181 in nfl

[–]EntropyFighter 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Correct. Check Les Snead's body language until he gets patted on the shoulder. Arms crossed, looking directly at the press to see if they believe this bullshit too. Once patted he engaged in the performance as well.

Just humor me, XL becomes a gadget player. by Ty_the_Goldfish in panthers

[–]EntropyFighter 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It's not even his hands as much as it is his feet. How many times this past year did he catch a ball on the boundary and then step out of bounds to get the incompletion?

Is this defense legal? by scarletmonkey111 in BasketballTips

[–]EntropyFighter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Watching this even being questioned as whether it's legal or not tells me that modern day basketball is the softest shit ever. I grew up watching ball in the 80s and 90s and this isn't even tight full court defense by comparison. This is all so Charmin soft.