3 ms·

The emails are discernible from noise though. They literally have a signal to noise ratio higher than one. Noise would be pure rng output. So I don’t know what

The emails are discernible from noise though. They literally have a signal to noise ratio higher than one. Noise would be pure rng output. So I don’t know what you’re getting at

Wolfenstein98k 2y ago
Yes you do. You're being over-literal. "Noise" in context doesn't mean random characters, it means garbage or spam or content not worth your while.
- bowsamic 2y ago
  No, I'm not being over-literal. Here's why: Yes, it could be that for you a given advert is irrelevant or not worth your while, but the point he was making is that it won't even be worth it for the advertiser to put out the advertisement because it will be noise for everyone. However, there is only one kind of noise that is noise for everyone: literal noise. So long as the spam is about something, it is relevant to someone, and therefore it does not necessarily have zero ROI. EDIT: The only kind of noise that has no semantic is actual "mathematically pure noise" as the person below commented (/u/dang banned my account so I can't reply)
  - thomashop 2y ago
    > However, there is only one kind of noise that is noise for everyone: literal noise. I feel like you're a bit too literal here. When people talk about noise it doesn't mean mathematically pure noise. A signal-to-noise ratio close to 1 is also colloquially called noise.
    - bowsamic 2y ago
      Addressed above
ImHereToVote 2y ago
He is talking about semantic noise. Something that appears to have substance but is just slop actually. When everything is that. Then all email will become equivalent to slop. How could it not? Someone will be burned once or twice, but after that, there is a semantic phase shift.
- bowsamic 2y ago
  What is "just slop" though? A spam advert for a product is still an advert for a product. Therefore it's not just semantic noise, it is still an advert for a product, and therefore his point is invalid: there is an ROI and people will continue to be employed to do it
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > A spam advert for a product is still an advert for a product. Therefore it's not just semantic noise, it is still an advert for a product Ergo slop and semantic noise. Companies that used adverts which weren't noise went out of business long ago.
    - bowsamic 2y ago
      Adverts have semantic content, they aren't noise.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        Let's just call it slop then. Peak HN: Another conversation is logjammed by nitpicking the precise definition of a word rather than discussing the overall point.
        bowsamic 2y ago
        Except I am still discussing the point: the companies won't stop getting an ROI because "slop" still produces an ROI, even if people know it's slop, because it isn't contentless noise, it has semantic content. Just because you and the others don't understand what point I'm making doesn't mean the conversation is "logjammed". I am still discussing the overall point, you just don't see it.

The emails are discernible from noise though. They literally have a signal to noise ratio higher than one. Noise would be pure rng output. So I don’t know what you’re getting at

Wolfenstein98k 2y ago

Yes you do. You're being over-literal. "Noise" in context doesn't mean random characters, it means garbage or spam or content not worth your while.

bowsamic 2y ago
No, I'm not being over-literal. Here's why: Yes, it could be that for you a given advert is irrelevant or not worth your while, but the point he was making is that it won't even be worth it for the advertiser to put out the advertisement because it will be noise for everyone. However, there is only one kind of noise that is noise for everyone: literal noise. So long as the spam is about something, it is relevant to someone, and therefore it does not necessarily have zero ROI. EDIT: The only kind of noise that has no semantic is actual "mathematically pure noise" as the person below commented (/u/dang banned my account so I can't reply)
- thomashop 2y ago
  > However, there is only one kind of noise that is noise for everyone: literal noise. I feel like you're a bit too literal here. When people talk about noise it doesn't mean mathematically pure noise. A signal-to-noise ratio close to 1 is also colloquially called noise.
  - bowsamic 2y ago
    Addressed above

ImHereToVote 2y ago

He is talking about semantic noise. Something that appears to have substance but is just slop actually. When everything is that. Then all email will become equivalent to slop. How could it not? Someone will be burned once or twice, but after that, there is a semantic phase shift.

bowsamic 2y ago
What is "just slop" though? A spam advert for a product is still an advert for a product. Therefore it's not just semantic noise, it is still an advert for a product, and therefore his point is invalid: there is an ROI and people will continue to be employed to do it
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > A spam advert for a product is still an advert for a product. Therefore it's not just semantic noise, it is still an advert for a product Ergo slop and semantic noise. Companies that used adverts which weren't noise went out of business long ago.
  - bowsamic 2y ago
    Adverts have semantic content, they aren't noise.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      Let's just call it slop then. Peak HN: Another conversation is logjammed by nitpicking the precise definition of a word rather than discussing the overall point.
      - bowsamic 2y ago
        Except I am still discussing the point: the companies won't stop getting an ROI because "slop" still produces an ROI, even if people know it's slop, because it isn't contentless noise, it has semantic content. Just because you and the others don't understand what point I'm making doesn't mean the conversation is "logjammed". I am still discussing the overall point, you just don't see it.