Not even seven percent. Lol. Seven thousand which is probably like .0001 percent.
Kinglink
joined 1 year ago
Active users would, I probably would too. Problem is most apps would struggle to even get new users with that system.
My wife and I just share our account which has worked perfect though I'm really the one who cooks so the recipe list becomes mine as well.
This is the result of shareholders. Capitalism doesn't have to turn into this and people can have small businesses that are comfortable and don't grow. But when you get investment involve the question is always "how do you 'grow this business' so I can get a ROI".
There's a few cases where that's not the case, but the majority of the mindset of the modern business world is fast returns, rather than sustainable growth.
It does have a "Community" aspect, but honestly I think it's quite weak on that. however if you have someone you know and their recipes are public you can see them, but not in any organized sense.
A big part is always going to be stabilization, when you're using the machines you don't need to focus on those muscles, so I usually recommend people doing free weights. It's a similar story to doing chest flies. But the big benefit of the machines is they're designed to conform to the "optimal" range of motion, and somewhat less chance of injury
What else do you think they should spend their money on?
Serious question, they're a social media site, their whole goal is to sell ads to consumers, which is all R&D cost and server cost. User acquisition at this point is minimal, Sales is basically "We have a lot of users, want to talk to them." The goal is to create ways that sales can sell to consumers to make money.
Doesn't help the consumer base is actively hostile to advertisements.
If you really haven't... you need to. Better yet read the book. It should be required reading in America to see how the financial institutions fucked over America in 2008 and most of them got away with it or got the government to pay for it's mismanagement, while a LOT of people got saddled with absolutely awful loans because all that mattered was creating and selling new debt.
"Forbes" is not the Forbes you are referring to. It's a blogging platform that shows the forbes name and claims they're "Contributors" but isn't actually "Forbes Magazine" which is what investors actually trust.
Basically this is just some shitbag pretending to be classy by hiding behind someone who sold him that space. There's a ton of shit Video Game "Articles" on the site too, same story(masquerade), same value (low) , same respectability (none)
They work about 75 to 90 percent of the time... You don't really want to hear stories about that either.
Both sides of LLM stories are just clickbait.