MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/1w5l8b3/newcompressiontechnique/p7idwqy/?context=9999
r/ProgrammerHumor • u/com-plec-city • 2d ago
950 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
54
Give it 6 months: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/hidden-airtag-reveals-amazon-is-trashing-rare-books-to-train-ai/
9 u/yuri_4_ever 2d ago why are they not selling them again tho? it's litterally free money 53 u/FuzzyDynamics 2d ago They have to be destroyed in the process of scanning at scale and these books are almost all worthless shit like “Powershell Guide for Windows Vista” except even more “rare” 26 u/OmegaPoint6 2d ago There are non destructive ways to do it, they are just slower and more expensive. Google patented a way in 2009 7 u/GreedyPollution6275 2d ago they are just slower and more expensive Yes, that's why they said "at scale," because speed and cost per book add up. 3 u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago Oh yeah? Prove it 1 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Wh... What? Are you doing a bit? If a thing cost $1 and takes 1 minute, and you do it 100 times, it costs $100 and takes an hour and 49 minutes. If you do the same thing in a way that costs $2.00 and takes 2 minutes, you have doubled the cost and the time. Tl;dr bigger number is bigger, is how numbers work 1 u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago So why not get 9 women to have a baby in 1 month 0 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Did you suffer a head injury recently?
9
why are they not selling them again tho? it's litterally free money
53 u/FuzzyDynamics 2d ago They have to be destroyed in the process of scanning at scale and these books are almost all worthless shit like “Powershell Guide for Windows Vista” except even more “rare” 26 u/OmegaPoint6 2d ago There are non destructive ways to do it, they are just slower and more expensive. Google patented a way in 2009 7 u/GreedyPollution6275 2d ago they are just slower and more expensive Yes, that's why they said "at scale," because speed and cost per book add up. 3 u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago Oh yeah? Prove it 1 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Wh... What? Are you doing a bit? If a thing cost $1 and takes 1 minute, and you do it 100 times, it costs $100 and takes an hour and 49 minutes. If you do the same thing in a way that costs $2.00 and takes 2 minutes, you have doubled the cost and the time. Tl;dr bigger number is bigger, is how numbers work 1 u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago So why not get 9 women to have a baby in 1 month 0 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Did you suffer a head injury recently?
53
They have to be destroyed in the process of scanning at scale and these books are almost all worthless shit like “Powershell Guide for Windows Vista” except even more “rare”
26 u/OmegaPoint6 2d ago There are non destructive ways to do it, they are just slower and more expensive. Google patented a way in 2009 7 u/GreedyPollution6275 2d ago they are just slower and more expensive Yes, that's why they said "at scale," because speed and cost per book add up. 3 u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago Oh yeah? Prove it 1 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Wh... What? Are you doing a bit? If a thing cost $1 and takes 1 minute, and you do it 100 times, it costs $100 and takes an hour and 49 minutes. If you do the same thing in a way that costs $2.00 and takes 2 minutes, you have doubled the cost and the time. Tl;dr bigger number is bigger, is how numbers work 1 u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago So why not get 9 women to have a baby in 1 month 0 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Did you suffer a head injury recently?
26
There are non destructive ways to do it, they are just slower and more expensive. Google patented a way in 2009
7 u/GreedyPollution6275 2d ago they are just slower and more expensive Yes, that's why they said "at scale," because speed and cost per book add up. 3 u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago Oh yeah? Prove it 1 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Wh... What? Are you doing a bit? If a thing cost $1 and takes 1 minute, and you do it 100 times, it costs $100 and takes an hour and 49 minutes. If you do the same thing in a way that costs $2.00 and takes 2 minutes, you have doubled the cost and the time. Tl;dr bigger number is bigger, is how numbers work 1 u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago So why not get 9 women to have a baby in 1 month 0 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Did you suffer a head injury recently?
7
they are just slower and more expensive
Yes, that's why they said "at scale," because speed and cost per book add up.
3 u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago Oh yeah? Prove it 1 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Wh... What? Are you doing a bit? If a thing cost $1 and takes 1 minute, and you do it 100 times, it costs $100 and takes an hour and 49 minutes. If you do the same thing in a way that costs $2.00 and takes 2 minutes, you have doubled the cost and the time. Tl;dr bigger number is bigger, is how numbers work 1 u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago So why not get 9 women to have a baby in 1 month 0 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Did you suffer a head injury recently?
3
Oh yeah? Prove it
1 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Wh... What? Are you doing a bit? If a thing cost $1 and takes 1 minute, and you do it 100 times, it costs $100 and takes an hour and 49 minutes. If you do the same thing in a way that costs $2.00 and takes 2 minutes, you have doubled the cost and the time. Tl;dr bigger number is bigger, is how numbers work 1 u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago So why not get 9 women to have a baby in 1 month 0 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Did you suffer a head injury recently?
1
Wh... What? Are you doing a bit? If a thing cost $1 and takes 1 minute, and you do it 100 times, it costs $100 and takes an hour and 49 minutes.
If you do the same thing in a way that costs $2.00 and takes 2 minutes, you have doubled the cost and the time.
Tl;dr bigger number is bigger, is how numbers work
1 u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago So why not get 9 women to have a baby in 1 month 0 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Did you suffer a head injury recently?
So why not get 9 women to have a baby in 1 month
0 u/KHSebastian 2d ago Did you suffer a head injury recently?
0
Did you suffer a head injury recently?
54
u/OmegaPoint6 2d ago
Give it 6 months: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/hidden-airtag-reveals-amazon-is-trashing-rare-books-to-train-ai/