A model trained on all data for 1m in every direction would probably be too sparse to be useful, but perhaps involving data from a different continent is costly overkill? I expect most users are only going to care about their immediate surroundings. Seems like an opportunity for optimization.
[1] https://www.networkworld.com/article/953621/the-cia-nsa-and-...
[2] https://kotaku.com/the-creators-of-pokemon-go-mapped-the-wor...
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
My personal layman's opinion:
I'm mostly surprised that they were able to do this. When I played Pokémon GO a few years back, the AR was so slow that I rarely used it. Apparently it's so popular and common, it can be used to train an LGM?
I also feel like this is a win-win-win situation here, economically. Players get a free(mium) game, Niantic gets a profit, the rest of the world gets a cool new technology that is able to turn "AR glasses location markers" into reality. That's awesome.
- We need to be the first to have a better, new generation 3D model of the world to build the future of maps on it. How can we get that data?"
+ What about gamifying it and crowd-sourcing it to the masses?
- Sure! Let's buy some Pokemon rights!
It's scary but some people do really have some long-term vision
Has anyone done something similar with the geolocated WIFI MAC addresses, to have small model for predicting location from those.
That is true for some people, but I'm fairly sure that the majority of people would not agree that it comes naturally to them.
Just for clarity on this comment and a separate one, Niantic is a Google spin out company and appears to still be majority shareholder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niantic,_Inc.#As_an_independen...
I expect that was also some reason behind their flickr bid back then.
https://medium.com/@dddexperiments/why-i-preserved-photosynt...
https://phototour.cs.washington.edu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynth
at least any patents regarding this will also expire about 2026.
It’s funny, we actually started by having people play games as well but we expressly told them it was to collect data. Brilliant to use an AR game that people actually play for fun
But I think your point, if I understand it correctly, is that the in-game rewards kind of "hacked your brain" to do it, which is the part you're objecting to?
Are you also fine with taking pictures of pretty women on the street (hey, they'd be walking there anyway) and posting them online and farming ad revenue? Or training a model on their likeness for porn?
I describe it here during 500 Startups demo day: https://youtu.be/3oYHxdL93zE?si=cvLob-NHNEIJqYrI&t=6411
I further described it on the Planet of the Apps episode 1
Here's my patent from 2018: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10977818B2/en
So. I'm not really sure what to do here given that this was exactly and specifically what we were building and frankly had a lot of success in actually building.
Quite frustrating
https://www.youtube.com/live/0ZKl70Ka5sg?feature=shared&t=12...
which is totally unfair, every niantic player should have access to all the stuff because they collectively made it
Real-Time mapping of the environment for VR experiences with built-in semantic understanding.
Winning at geoguesser, automated doxing of anybody posting a picture of themselves.
Robotic positioning and navigation
Asset generation for video games. Think about generating an alternate New York City that's more influenced by Nepal.
I'm getting echoes of neural radiance fields as well.
Procedural generation of an alternative planet is the kind of stuff that the No Man's sky devs could only dream of.
What they're doing is (IMO) evil and anti-human and I do not want to be part of it
I don't think I've done any in PoGo (so I know it's very optional), but I've done plenty in Ingress, and I honestly don't see how it's possible to be surprised that it was contributing to something like this? It is hardly an intuitively native standalone gameplay mechanic in either game.
Like when captchas were for making old books readable it felt a lot more friendly than now where its all driverless car nonsense
All of which I've directly contributed to and never (directly) recieved anything in return
The better metaphor is a woman posting her photos online and then those photos were used by a painter who then sold an abstract painting of her.
I'm not arguing to a legal basis but if it's crowdsourced, then the inputs came from ordinary people. Sure, they signed to T&Cs.
Philosophically, I think knowledge, facts of the world as it is, even the constructed world, should be public knowledge not an asset class in itself.
> Today we have 10 million scanned locations around the world, and over 1 million of those are activated and available for use with our VPS service.
This 1 in 10 figure is about accurate, both from experience as a player and from perusing the mentioned Visual Positioning System service. Most POI never get enough scan data to 'activate'. The data from POI that are able to activate can be accessed with a free account on Niantic Lightship [1], and has been available for a while.
I'll be curious to see how Niantic plans to fill in the gaps, and gather scan data for the 9 out of 10 POI that aren't designated for scan rewards.
To be fair, you received a service for free that you may have otherwise had to pay for. I'm not saying it's just, but to say you didn't get anything in return is disingenuous.
is a webcam of Times Square, and they've got ads on the page, and they're making money off pictures of pretty men and women on that street. I don't know how okay or not I am with it, but it's the world we live in.
I would think there's actually a lot of epidemiology data which also should be winding up in the public domain getting locked up in medical IPR. I could make the same case. Cochrane reports rely on being able to do meta analysis over existing datasets. Thats value.
The connection is a ship, built in Connecticut, which brought gold rushers to San Francisco and was run aground and converted to a hotel there: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niantic_(whaling_vessel)
The company was named after the ship.
Wait, they get a million a week but they only have a total of 10 million, ie 10 days worth? Is this a typo or am I missing something?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/01/style/bill-cunningham-boo...
People are duped into thinking they’re doing some “greater good” by completing the in-app surveys and yet the data they give back is for Google’s exclusive use and, in fact, deepens their moat.
I don't understand this perspective. While all players may have collectively made this model possible, no individual player could make a model like it based on their contributions alone.
Since no single player could replicate this outcome based on only their data, does it not imply that there's value created from collecting (and incentivizing collection of) the data, and subsequently processing it to create something?
It actually seems more unfair to demand the collective result for yourself, when your own individual input is itself insufficient to have created it in the first place.
I don't think producers of data are inherently entitled to all products produced from said data.
Is a farmer entitled to the entirety of your work output because you ate a vegetable grown on their farm?
Given how expensive it is to query Google places, would love a crowdsourced open-source places API.
This crowdsourced approach probably eliminates that issue.
Bad analogy. I pay a farmer (directly or indirectly) for the vegetable. It’s a simple, understood, transaction. These players were generally unaware that they were gathering data for Niantic in this way.
If data is crowdsourced it should belong to the crowd.
https://research.nianticlabs.com/mapfree-reloc-benchmark
This was linked the news post (search for "data that we released").
I recall having a conversation circa 2004/5 with a colleague that Google was an AI company, not a search company.
"You used me... for LAND DEVELOPMENT! ...That wasn't very nice."
You were playing a game without paying for it. How did you imagine they were making money without pimping your data?
I don't think this is very difficult to sort out: people feel entitled to the products of their labor.
> Is a farmer entitled to the entirety of your work output because you ate a vegetable grown on their farm?
This is comparing apples and oranges: presumably the consumer didn't do anything to produce the vegetable. Hell if anything, under this analogy niantic would owe users a portion of their profits.
If you enjoy the game, play the game. Don’t boycott/withhold because they figured out an additional use for data that didn’t previously exist.
Another way of viewing this: GoogleMaps is incredibly high quality mapping software with lots of extra features. It is mostly free (for the end user). If no one uses it, Google doesn’t collect the data and nobody can benefit from the analysis of the data (eg. Traffic and ETA on Google Maps)
There’s no reason to hold out for a company to pay you for your geolocation data because none of them offer that service.
Seems like navigation is ‘solved’? There’s already a lot of technology supporting permanence of virtual objects based on spatial mapping? Better AI generated animations?
I am sure there are a ton of innovations it could unlock…
Unsarcastically, a lot of people believe user data belongs to users, and that they should have a say in how it's used. Here, I think the point is that Niantic decided they could use the data this way and weren't transparent about it until it was already done. I'm sure I would be in the minority, but I would never have played - or never have done certain things like the research tasks - had I known I was training an AI model.
I'm sure the Po:Go EULA that no one reads has blanket grants saying "you agree that we can do whatever we want," so I can't complain too hard, but still disappointed I spent any time in that game.
I can understand that people believe this, but why do they do? Nothing in our society operates in a way that might imply this.
Not saying you are saying this but it amused me how many people believe(d) that Apple wasn’t mining and hoarding location data either because well, they’re Apple and they love you. All those traffic statuses in Apple Maps on minor side streets with no monitoring came from the … traffic fairy, perhaps.
P.S.: Also, if that's indeed what they mean, I wonder why having google street view data isn't enough for that.
Additionally, many people can contribute to make something greater that benefits everyone (see open source). So the argument of “you couldn’t have done this on your own” also doesn’t hold any water.
The only thing that protects niantic is just a shitty ToS like the rest of the games that nobody pays attention to. There is nothing fundamentally “right” about what they did.
They are a bit vague on what else the model does, but it sounds like they extrapolate what the rest of the environment could look like, the same way you can make a good guess what the back side of that rock would look like. That gives autonomous robots a baseline they can use to plan actions (like how to drive/fly/crawl to the other side) that can be updated as new view points become available.
Niantic was always open with the fact that they gather location data, particularly in places cars can't go - I remember an early blog post saying as much before they were unbundled from Google. No one was tricked, they were just not paying attention.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/pokemon-go-trespassers-militar...
Off the top of my head I think GDPR in the EU might have something to say about this. I don't know if those protections exist anywhere else or not.
In the US, people get very upset about things like traffic cameras, and public surveillance in general. Those are usually data-for-punishment vs. data-for-profit (...maybe?), but people here resist things like data recorders in their cars to lower car insurance.
At least to me, being unhappy about Niantic's behavior here does not seem the least bit unusual.
This, yes, based on how the backsides of similar buildings have looked in other learned areas.
But the other missing piece of what it is seems to be relativity and scale: I do 3D model generation at our game studio right now and the biggest want/need current models can't do is scale (and, specifically, relative scale) -- we can generate 3d models for entities in our game but we still need a person in the loop to scale them to a correct size relative to other models: trees are bigger than humans, and buildings are bigger still. Current generative 3d models just create a scale-less model for output; it looks like a "geospatial" model incorporates some form of relative scale, and would (could?) incorporate that into generated models (or, more likely, maps of models rather than individual models themselves).
It became an independent entity in October 2015 when Google restructured under Alphabet Inc. During the spinout, Niantic announced that Google, Nintendo, and The Pokémon Company would invest up to $30 million in Series-A funding. Not sure what the current ownership is (they've raised a few more times since then), but they're seemingly still very closely tied with Google.
People get upset about a lot of things in the US. In fact—for some unknown reason we consider it a form of political activity to get upset over things. However, there is not any political party trying to court voters by advocating for dismantling the intelligence state.
I don't understand what this has to do with the topic at hand. Are you suggesting that people can't conceive of the sale of their data because they can conceive of whales amortizing the cost of their video games? That seems contradictory in your estimation of people's ability to grasp the world.
(And I don't even mean only that it complies with the exact wording of the fine print that nobody reads anyway, but also that everyone expects the terms-and-conditions to say that the company owns all the data. So no surprises to anyone.)
I'm fairly sure, if you read the terms-and-conditions, it probably said that the company owns this data and can do what they want with it.
> There’s no reason to hold out for a company to pay you for your geolocation data because none of them offer that service.
Well, it can make perfect sense (to some people) to hold out forever in that case.
That was fairly obvious at the time. And people used more or less exactly the same language to describe the world back then, too.
> These kinds of comments are extraordinarily disingenuous sounding, particularly when anyone can spend 3 seconds and figure out their primary market is literal children.
Poke Mongo was popular with people of all age groups, and (most) children have parents or other guardians to help them with these decisions.
you werent tricked - your location data doesn't belong to you when you use the game.
I don't get why people somehow feel that they are entitled to the post-facto profit/value derived from the data that at the time they're willingly giving away before they "knew of" the potential value.
The farmers you buy the vegetables from are also generally unaware of how you use them, too!
I fail to see how you're differentiating the analogy from the original example.
<insert obnoxious EU-akshually>
When users scan their barcode, the preview window is zoomed in so users think its mostly barcode. We actually get quite a bit more background noise typically of a fridge, supermarket aisle, pantry etc. but it is sent across to us, stored, and trained on.
Within the next year we will have a pretty good idea of the average pantry, fridge, supermarket aisle. Who knows what is next
I CALL BS. We paid ALL THE TIME! We pay even item's capacity so much they need to increase the limit recently[1].
Ref:
[1] https://www.facebook.com/PokemonGO/posts/1102918761192160
What labor, though? They took a few pictures and videos (hell, they probably still have a copy of them, so giving a copy to Niantic is essentially free), and were generally compensated for doing that (through in-game rewards, but compensated nonetheless).
The "labor" that transformed the many players' many bits of data was done by Niantic, and thus I would argue that Niantic is the rightful beneficiary of any value that could not be generated by any individual player. To my earlier point, every player could retain a copy of every photo/video they submitted to Niantic, and still be unable to produce this model from it.
> This is comparing apples and oranges: presumably the consumer didn't do anything to produce the vegetable. Hell if anything, under this analogy niantic would owe users a portion of their profits.
The players are also compensated for their submissions, are they not? It doesn't matter that it's not with "real money", in-game rewards are still compensation.
If you agree that a farmer is not entitled to any (much less all!) of your work output because they contributed to feeding you, you agree that the players are not entitled to the models produced by Niantic.
Maybe I'd accept the argument that a player might be entitled to the model generated by training on _only_ that player's data, but I think we'd agree that would be a pretty worthless model.
The value comes from the work Niantic put in to collate the data and build the model. Someone who contributed a tiny fragment of the training data isn't entitled to any of that added value (much less all of it, as the OP was seeming to demand), just like a farmer isn't entitled to any of your work output (much less all of it!) by contributing a fragment of your caloric intake.
"How did you imagine they were making money without pimping your data?"
I imagined they were making money in the big obvious way they make money!
I can conceive of them selling user data, but it's not their core business model, and they would operate basically the same if they couldn't sell user data. It was never some obvious thing that they would do this.
What if it's on their desk and there are sensitive legal documents next to it? How are you safeguarding all that private data? You could well be illegally in possession of classified documents, unconsenting nudes, all kinds of stuff. And it sounds like it's not even encrypted.
They were pretty up-front about it bring a technology demo for a game engine they were building. It was obvious from the start that they would build future games on the same platform.
Otherwise, someone is FIRED
This is more like paying the farmhands.
If we're looking at my work output, eh, everyone that works on a copyrighted thing gets a personal license to it? That sounds like it would work out okay.
> I don't think producers of data are inherently entitled to all products produced from said data.
It depends on how directly the data is tied to the output. This seems pretty direct.
I beg your pardon?
Consider just about any physical belonging — say, a book. When I buy a book, it belongs to me. When I read a book in my home, I expect it to be a private experience (nobody data-mining my eyeball movements, for example).
This applies to all sorts of things. Even electronic things — if I put some files on a USB stick I expect them to be "mine" and used as I please, not uploaded to the cloud behind my back, or similar.
And if we're just limiting ourselves to what we do in public (eg: collecting pokemon or whatever), it's still normal, I think, to interact relatively anonymously with the world. You don't expect people to remember you after meeting them once, for example.
In summary, I'd say that "things in our society" very much include people (and their tendency to forget or not care about you), and physical non-smart objects. Smart phones and devices that do track your every move and do remember everything are the exception, not the rule.
I wish it were that simple but I think it's reasonable to hesitate. We don't know what these models are going to be used for. If by playing you're unwittingly letting something powerful fall into the wrong hands, maybe play something else.
(Generally speaking. I'm not trying to throw stones at Niantic specifically here.)
The rest of the world gets an opportunity to purchase access to said new technology, you mean! It's not like they're releasing how they generated the models. It's much more difficult to get excited about paid-access to technology than it is about access to tech itself.
Everything “free” coming from a company means they’ve found a way to monetise you in some way. The big long ToS we all casually accept without reading says so too.
Other random examples which appear free but aren’t: using a search engine, using the browser that comes with your phone, instagram, YouTube… etc.
It’s not always about data collection, sometimes it’s platform lock-in, or something else but there is always a side of it that makes sense for their profit margin.
That's all they need to do to cover themselves.
With this broad of a privacy policy, they can start MyFitnessPal.com/UncroppedCandidPhotos where they let people search for users by name, email, or phone and sell your photos to the highest bidder, and that still would count as a Service that uses photos to customize. You consented to it!
> This feels like the kind of flimsy reasoning that only holds so long as no one is challenging it.
No, it is written by professional lawyers to be as permissive as possible.
3D artist can create a model of a space and offer rights to the owner of the land, who in turn can choose to create his own model or use the one provided by an artist.
Perhaps this is just my own brain's degradation, but how far removed from society do you need to be to expect your purchases to not be sold to the highest bidder? This practice is certainly older than I am.
Forgive me if I cannot conceive of a consumer who has completely tuned out the last forty years of discourse about consumer protection. Hell, the credit bureaus themselves contradict the concept of consumer privacy.
But you repeat myself.
OK, say they do all that, that isn't customisation (I would argue) it is a new service that was built from unconsented data scraped from users of the pre-existing services. Call that splitting hairs if you like, but this looks like a risk to me.
There are plenty of non-scan tasks you can do to get those rewards as well but I do think Poffins (largely useless unless you are grinding Best Buddies) are locked behind scan tasks.
Source: Me. This is the one topic I am very qualified to speak to on this website.
If this is real and not a joke, I bet some DPA will disagree if this is brought to their attention. Effective consent under GDPR requires informed consent.
Or rather, I hope they do, and receive an appropriate fine for this, if not even criminal prosecution (e.g. if the app uploaded nonconsensual pornography of someone visible only in the cropped out space).
Every app you open on Mac sends a "ping" to Apples servers.
https://acecilia.medium.com/apple-is-sending-a-request-to-th....
That is how monetization for free to play games have worked for a very long time now. Changing that without letting people know up front is absolutely a betrayal of trust.
However, I can't fully agree that generating 3d scene "on the fly" is the future of maps and many other use cases for AR.
The thing with geospatial, buildings, roads, signs, etc. objects is that they are very static, not many changes are being made to them and many changes are not relevant to the majority of use cases. For example: today your house is white and in 3 years it has stains and yellowish color due to time, but everything else is the same.
Given that storage is cheap and getting cheaper, bandwidth of 5G and local networks is getting too fast for most current use cases, while computer graphics compute is still bound by our GPU performance, I say that it would be much more useful to identify the location and the building that you are looking at and pull the accurate model from the cloud (further optimisations might be needed like to pull only the data user has access to or needs access to given the task he is doing). Most importantly users will need to have access to a small subset of 3D space on daily basis, so you can have a local cache on end devices for best performance and rendering. Or stream rendered result from the cloud like nVidia GDN is doing.
Most precise models will come from CAD files for newly built buildings, retrospectively going back to CAD files of buildings build in last 20-30 years(I would bet most of them have some soft of computer model made before) and finally going back even further - making AI look at the old 2D construction plans of the building and reconstructing it in 3D.
Once the building is reconstructed (or a concrete pole like shown in the article) you can pull its 3D model from the cloud and place it in front of the user - this will cover 95% of use cases for AR. For 5% of the tasks you might want real time recognition of the current state of surfaces for some tasks or changes in geometry (like tracking the changes in the road quality compared with the previous scans or with reference model), but these cases can be tackled separately and having precise 3D model will only help, but won't be needed to be reconstructed from scratch.
This is a good 1st step to make a 3D map, however there should be an option to go to the real location and make edits to 3D plan by the expert so that the model can be precise and not "kind of" precise.
Sure, copying it is approximately free. But using it provides value, and sharing the model dilutes the value of its usage. The fact that it's free to copy doesn't mean it's free to share. The value of the copy that Niantic uses will be diluted by every copy they make and share with someone else.
> Additionally, many people can contribute to make something greater that benefits everyone (see open source). So the argument of “you couldn’t have done this on your own” also doesn’t hold any water.
Your second sentence does not logically follow from the first. In fact, your first sentence is an excellent example of the point I was making: many people contribute to open-source projects, and the value of the vast majority of those contributions on their own do not amount to the sum total value of the projects they've contributed to. This is what I meant by "your own individual input is itself insufficient to have created it in the first place". Sure, many people contribute to open source projects to make them what they are, but in the vast majority of cases, any individual contributor on their own would be unable to create those same projects.
To rephrase your first sentence: the value of the whole is greater than the value of the parts. There is value in putting all the pieces together in the right way, and that value should rightfully be allocated to those who did the synthesis, not to those who contributed the parts.
Is a canvas-maker entitled to every painting produced on one of their canvasses? Without the canvas the painting would not exist--but merely producing the canvas does not make it into a painting. The value is added by the artist, not the canvas-maker--therefore the value for the produced art should mostly go to the artist, not the canvas-maker. The canvas maker is compensated for the value of the canvas itself (which isn't much), and is entitled to nothing beyond.
> The only thing that protects niantic is just a shitty ToS like the rest of the games that nobody pays attention to. There is nothing fundamentally “right” about what they did.
There's also nothing fundamentally wrong about it, either, which was my point. Well, my point was actually that it's even more shitty to demand the sum total of the output when you only contributed a tiny slice of the input.
Training data is people taking dedicated video of locations. Only ARCore supported devices can submit data as well. So I assume along with the video they're also collecting a good chunk of other data such as depth maps, accelerometer, gyrometer, magnetometer data, GPS, and more.
Until pretty recently, phone telemetry data was a free-for-all, and if you’re, say, in legal trouble, a map of the location of your phone over the past… however long you’ve had your phone is immediately available.
Credit cards and Banks sold your data to third parties for marketing purposes.
Payroll companies like ADP also shared your data with the credit agencies.
This is not a new phenomenon and has been the currency of a number of industries for a while.
The only thing that has changed is the types of data collected. Personally, I think these older forms of data collection are quite a bit more insidious than some of the data mining done by a game like Niantic for some ml model.
I have a lot more control over and less insidious consequences from these types of data collection. I can avoid the game or service if I like. There isn't much I can do to prevent a credit agency from collecting my data.
This is a vision document, presumably intended to position Niantic as an AI company (and thus worthy of being showered with funding), instead of a mobile gaming company, mainly on the merit of the data they've collected rather than their prowess at training large models.
I do think it wasn't until after Pokemon Go launched and they saw the success of it, that they shifted focus to be more of a platform for these types of experiences (see Niantic Lightship). Additionally, I think Unity offered them the opportunity to integrate with ARCore and collect much more detailed data than they would've ever been able to do on the old Ingress engine. In fact, I expect a significant chunk of ARCore functionality was added specifically thanks to Niantic and Unity (in fact, you see Unity mentioned all over the Google Developer docs for it).
It depends quite a bit on how you make your purchases.
If your purchases are on a credit card, with a loyalty ("tracking") card or App(TM) involved in the purchase? They're absolutely being sold to... well, probably not the highest bidder, but "all bidders with a valid payment account on file."
If you make a habit of paying cash for things and not using Apps or loyalty cards, and don't have your pocket beacon blaring loudly away on a range of radio frequencies when you shop, I expect a lot less data sales. It's a bit of a transition if you're used to credit cards, but once you're used to it, it's not bad at all, and involves a lot less data collection. I don't mind if the local barista or bartender knows me and my preferences, but I do mind if their POS system is uploading that data continuously.
I was just providing some counter-examples to show that there's more than nothing at play, here.
Certainly there are oodles of examples of our data being sold behind our backs, even well before 40 years ago. But there are also oodles of examples of the opposite.
If you weren't aware until now and were having fun is this outcome so bad? Did you have a work contract with this company to provide labor for wages and they didn't pay you? if not, then I don't think you can be upset that they are possibly profiting from your "labor".
Every time we visit a site that is free, which means 99.9% of all websites, that website bore a cost for our visit. Sometimes they show us ads which sometimes offsets the cost of creating the content and hosting it.
I am personally very glad with this arrangement. If a site is too ad filled, I just leave immediately.
With a game that is free and fun, I would be happy that I didn't have to pay anything and that the creator figured out a way for both parties to get something out of the deal. Isn't that a win-win situation?
Also, calling your experience "labor" when you were presumably having fun (if you weren't then why were you playing without expectation for payment in return?) is disingenuous.
At some point we need to be realistic about the world in which we live. Companies provide things for free or for money. If they provide something for "free", then we can't really expect to be compensated for our "labor" playing the game and that yes, the company is probably trying to figure out how to recoup their investment.
So obviously, now that Niantic is getting things outside the game its reasonable the people who did the work ask for something from that.
Hello court jurors ! I hope you're having a great day. One of the attorneys breath smells pretty bad, am I right ?
Note to future digital me, do as I did 2007-2014. I approve.
You grew apples, I grew oranges.
Are you entitled to my oranges just because you grew apples?
If I mapped the area around my home, am I entitled to your efforts in mapping other areas of the world?
Imagine a comedian saying this on stage, how many laughs would that get?
> Do people really think MyFitnessPal is trying to build a model of the average pantry?
We’ve all seen dumber things that are real. Juicero is my personal favorite example.
Despite what success fantasies and other self-help garbage teach people, a lot of society — most of it, actually — does not work on greed. That you can ignore thinking about it is itself a statement about deep foundations under the shallow bling.