I honestly don't have a strong sense of how Tate can be so popular. But if I had to guess, I'd say the "no sense of community" is probably the biggest thing.
The internet has become a gathering place where communities and social bonds are formed. I can imagine a heap of people who are struggling socially in the real world seeing, and then seeing Tate and his community offer an 'answer' to that - supporting those who feel rejected, and putting the blame squarely on others. That's what I see as the draw that brings people in. They feel safe and secure in their haven of hatred. Any opposition to them is from people that are weaker and less important. -- Which then makes leaving the group almost impossible, because you'd have to degrade your own view of yourself - joining the people who you think are weaker and less important.
So this Tate thing is rot that has taken root because of a gap in more healthy support structures. (I don't see an easy solution for it though!)
Hold on. That page does not list VLC or KeePass. Is there more info about this other than the list? Or is the info in the title of this post incorrect?
[edit]
I see now. The page does not list VLC or KeePass, but those two both do come up if you put them into the search box. The software listed on the page is a very long list, but it is apparently on the 'most popular' stuff - not the entire list. (Although it is strange to see a heap of niche stuff, and stuff I've never heard of on the 'most popular' list while VLC doesn't make the cut.)
I'm not sure this list is a very strong endorsement by the French Government. It seems to just be listing free software options, and then asking other people to sign up to say which ones they use.
It does kind of feel like the UN could use a refresh. In particular, the veto powers given to certain countries feels bad. There may be good reasons for that system, but the system is not good - and the details of the reasons have definitely shifted over time such that the choice of countries with veto power is now highly questionable.
My point was that "lose money on every prompt" would be true in a technical sense regardless of how much people were paying for a subscription. The subscription money is money in, and the cost of calculations is money out. It's still money out regardless of what is coming in.
As for whether the business is profitable or not, it's not so easy to tell unless you're an insider. Companies like this basically never make a 'profit' on paper, but that doesn't mean they aren't enriching themselves. They are counting their own pay as part of the costs, and they set their pay to whatever they like. They are also counting various research and expansion efforts as part of the cost. So yeah, they might not have any excess money to pay dividends to shareholders, but that doesn't mean they aren't profitable.
People don't usually interact with a hammer by talking to it. They interact by holding it, placing it, hammering with it. Respect for a hammer (or similar tool) would be based around those kinds of actions.
Whereas people do interact with a chatbot by talking to it. So then respect for a chatbot would be built around what is said.
People can show respect for a hammer, a house, a dinner prepared by their spouse, their spouse, a chatbot, etc.. but respect for each of those things will look a bit different.
Well sure, answering the queries continues to cost the company money regardless of what subscription the user has. The company would definitely make more money if the users paid for subscription and then made zero queries.
I'd try this, but I don't know what address to email them at. All of the support / contact instructions are a labyrinth of automated systems, with the fallback option of using the 'community forum'. Google doesn't seem to want anyone to contact them for any reason.
I thought that too at first, which is why I tried every other available option first. But that theory is disproven by the fact that the first attempt with the number told me that the given number was not registered to the account (and so I still couldn't log in). Clearly they were comparing the entered number to something they already had.
Is that a deliberate conscience telepathic effort, or automatic unconscious reflex? (eg. Perhaps you don't want to accidentally hover or float in public.)
Look man, from a technical language point of view there is nothing whatsoever wrong with calling people 'females'. However, by speaking to such people face-to-face you quickly learn that basically not one likes to be called that. The reasons are subtle, and frankly not very important. But the fact remains that calling people 'females' is now seen as a sign that you don't understand or respect them - on the grounds that you are using a phrase that you've been asked not to use. Just say 'women' instead.
That's true on face value. The issue is that accusations of misandry are almost always unfounded, and only made as a way to deflect and to attack women. So when people start talking about misandry, that's generally a red flag.
It's similar to how "all lives matter" is definitely a true and good value - but yet it is almost always said as a way to divert support away from vulnerable groups. So although the literal meaning is good, it is fair to assume that people saying it do not have good intentions.
Sure. I agree that's the problem; and none of these analogies really help make that any easier to understanding. Certainly they don't have a "murder as much as you like" policy! (I find that analogies are rarely useful - except for manipulating how you want people to feel.)
wtf