InfiniteHench

Personally I worry this is sort of a chicken and egg problem. On one hand I get the idea, on paper, of automating a way to post more content to hopefully spark engagement in a small community struggling to grow.

OTOH, as a community visitor, few things will immediately tank my interest in engaging than when I see “bot” in the name of the poster. I’m not talking with a human—literally the entire point of hanging out in a community like you and I are, right now.

I think it’s a similar problem to what I see in r/blogging. People keep asking if they can start a blog and pump it full of AI content, then get admitted to AdSense or other ad networks and thus win the game of capitalism. But virtually zero ad networks will admit you that way. In fact, they all have a bunch of tech now to sniff out AI content and downrank or otherwise block it. The problem is: no one wants to read AI (bot) content because it isn’t genuine content from human beings. Which means no advertiser wants to place their ads next to AI content.

Speaking as a community manager: If you’re trying to build a community, I think the best solution is still to simply put in the time yourself. Find people who share your passion and want to help. Post the links and discussions yourself. Be the human you want to see in the community of humans you hope to build.

I was trying to keep my examples simple for the point but cars usually have sub-brand designations that answer some or most of your questions. Like “LE” or “XR” and such. But people don’t walk around telling each other they drive a “Honda 8CVXY64LLM123GRV,” because most people don’t remember code names like that. They just say “yeah I drive an Accord, it has features x y and z that I really like.”

I get the logic here but I just don’t think most people think like this. Products are called the “Honda Accord” and the “Apple iPhone” and the “Cordless handheld vacuum” for a reason.

Maybe these code names make sense for the actual engineers working on them. But only the nerdiest of the nerdiest of nerdy consumers will remember a couple of these names. In my line of work I’ve spent a couple decades with a ton of regular folks, non-techy people. You might be surprised how many of them can barely remember what number of iPhone they’re on, and don’t even think about asking them which version of iOS is installed.

TBC: This is not a knock against people who aren’t neck-deep in every industry of every product they own. I couldn’t tell you which engine is in my Hyundai Tuscon or which generation of motor is in my cordless vacuum.

I just think these names are gibberish, probably greenlit by people who don’t think about this stuff. But they aren’t effective names for regular consumers.

I wonder if the danger here is that the iPad already powers the keyboard through the Smart Connector. BUT, since the keyboard has no battery, it can charge the iPad back through that Smart Connector. It’s a strange device relationship.

Seems like a complicated situation. They're technically two separate devices, one port (iPad) can send power in and out, the other can only send it in (Magic Keyboard). This warning is specifically about connecting a single USB-C cable between the two, which I imagine can create an undesirable loop of power or miscommunication or whatever.

Huh, can you elaborate? I settled on Vivaldi for now but I don’t love that it’s Chromium

You can charge it via either port—plug a cable into the iPad’s direct port on the bottom, or plug a cable into the C port on the keyboard, and the iPad will charge via the Smart Connector that attaches the keyboard to the iPad.

This warning simply tells us not to create a loop between those two ports with a single cable. My post is just a silly joke about using this method to create infinite power.