diputsmonro

Generally, it's a distinction without a meaningful difference. The people you're complaining about don't really care whether or not it's government or civil action. They care that these people are getting away with murder and mass extortion and the only penalty they face is a meager chunk of the profits.

I'm glad that some victims are getting some recompense, but frankly, justice has not really been served.

> you are saying is the people prefer someone who is apparently appears not have a dark side. IMO such people are just adept at camouflaging their dark side, politicians do it routinely.

When this person owns one of the largest communication platforms on Earth and regularly spreads conspiracy theories, disinformation, and transphobia... yes, I would prefer they hide that. That rhetoric does real harm to people.

Accusing someone of being a pedophile without evidence isn't something you just say "Well at least he's speaking his mind!" to.

The richest man on Earth should be able to afford a therapist, or at least a PR firm. If his ego is preventing him from doing so, well, that's a fair thing to criticize.

I would imagine that more people are familiar with the size of DVDs than shotputs.

As a telling piece of evidence, the header image in the article you linked doesn't even include one.

Sure, but the idea that animal cognition is radically different or lesser than ours is itself an assumptive default that science is comfortable making. We should question that as the default assumption.

As a pet owner, I find it absolutely ridiculous and insulting that animals intelligence is assumed to be so low. My firsthand experience is that there is a lot more intelligence there than people generally give them credit for, even if science hasn't delineated every single aspect of it yet. As scientists keep confirming these "discoveries", I think the default assumption (and language) should shift to assuming more similarity than differences unless proven otherwise.

I mean, that's the nature of bribery, isn't it? Of course you want to pay someone to get special treatment, who doesn't?

Both of those had some kind of enforced content regulation and much easier way for parents to choose what their kids were exposed to. Yeah, precocious kids could find ways around rules sometimes, but those are exceptions.

Tiktok and similar apps are completely different.

There you go again, complaining about my argument instead of refuting it.

It's not about liberals or conservatives, it's about ordinary people not liking things and spreading the word, ideally so people with the power to change things hear it. Conservatives cancel too, e.g. the Bud Light / Dylan Mulvaney boycott.

People complaining on Twitter don't have the power to fire/remove anybody. All they can do is spread allegations. If those allegations are true and bad enough that your employers or associates want to disassociate themselves with you, that is your (or your associates') fault, not the whistleblowers'.

Employers don't just fire you because a Twitter mob told them to. They do it because they learned about your bad behavior and no longer have faith in you.

If you don't like being fired: - Don't do stuff your employers will find distasteful - Vote for candidates to end at-will employment and give stronger employee rights

People posting their opinions on Twitter does you no harm. Mute or block of you must, and move on.

If you prefer to be a jerk, that's certainly an option, yes. Just don't be surprised or blame "cancel culture" when the people you belittle stop inviting you to parties.

They don't need to. But they offended their main target demographic, so it's probably a good business move to try to regain their trust.

Honestly, have you read his Twitter responses? They are frequently transphobic and conspiratorial. I didn't even have to look very hard to find him clearly calling COVID a "scamdemic" and heavily implying baseless election fraud.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1788441056905707613?t=_v...

None of the things you mention are valid excuses. This is why PR firms exist. He has chosen, in his hubris, to ignore them.

When someone buys the world's largest communication platform and then uses it to spread hate speech, conspiracy theories, and misinformation - that is absolutely worth criticism.

Would you prefer a world wherein people aren't allowed to speak their mind instead?

Stop being so sensitive about people "being sensitive" and engage in the discussion instead of dismissing it.

All this complaining about "cancel culture" is just complaining that other people are using their freedom of speech in a way that you don't like. This is what freedom is speech means - disagreement. Stop whining about people disagreeing with you. Either address the arguments they're making to further the conversation, or deal with it.

If you truly value art and expression, then why do you oppose people expressing themselves when they say they don't like the ad?

The society you want is the one we have - an expression was made by Apple, and in response, thousands of artists have made their own expressions. This is what a society of free expression looks like.

The world you're arguing for would be one where the expressions of tech companies are beyond reproach and other people are not allowed to express themselves in response. Why should tech companies get that special treatment?

In my opinion, it says something about your mentality that you value the expression of one group but not the other.

I hate this idea - this apparent concern that Apple is getting "silenced". There is no such thing as being "silenced" when you're a billion dollar company. Moreover, the apparent "silencing" is simply people using their freedom of expression to voice an opinion of opposition. It is the core feature of being able to express oneself.

The ability of these common artists being able to speak their true thoughts against a billion dollar institution - and the institution feeling pressure to respond to them - is the whole point of having the freedom of expression. What else is even the point of allowing discussion, dissent, and expression if you don't want those to have any chance of affecting some outcome?

We don't need other automakers to spread anti-Tesla sentiment, Musk is doing more than enough of that himself for free.

Agree! I will add that it's actually very possible to write Perl in a readable way (at least no more unreadable than your average bash or python script). It's all up to the developer to write readable, maintainable code instead of trying to impress themselves with their esoteric one-liners.

With the light syntax and giant, well-documented community repos, it feels a lot like Python With References to me, which is honestly pretty great imo. I wish more people respected Perl.

I would say that "brainwashing yourself to deal with it" actually is a useful therapeutic technique. Often the person who committed the offense can't be made to understand or care about the damage they've caused, and the next best thing then is to help the injured person move on as best they can.

And while "brainwashing" sounds like an intellectually dishonest technique, we need to remember that the brain is not a perfectly logical instrument. The trauma that people seek help for carries an emotional toll usually in excess of the simple logical "disagreement". Therapy for such trauma is usually an emotional process, not a logical one.

I would agree though that "forgiveness" is maybe not the best term for this.

There is no comforting answer. Welcome to unchecked capitalism, it's short-term-profit-driven thinking all the way down. In every industry it's the same. The guard rails have been systematically dismantled for decades by opportunists just like this, hoping to make some quick cash and jump ship before it falls down.

Whenever anyone points this out, they get labeled as cynics who hate capitalism and industry, and their complaints are swept under the rug -- after all, the company hasn't collapsed yet, so the worries must be unfounded!

This is exactly why strong government regulations and oversight is necessary. Strictly profit driven companies don't care about externalities like pollution or human lives. Literally, they only care about making one number go up, everything else (including the long term value of the number) means nothing at all.

Only if you view rules as pointless adversaries to be beaten. But often rules exist for good reasons to keep people safe and keep interactions fair and trustworthy.

Bending rules isn't something that you should take inherent pride in, and personally, it always lowers my opinion of such people.

Reminds me of the old phrase, "luck is when preparation meets opportunity". The strategies discussed in this article seem to maximize the "opportunity" side of that equation.

The government is literally asking for that data though? It doesn't really matter why Google wants it, the effect is the same. We should be concerned and we should resist giving them as much data as possible, because when the government comes knocking they'll ask for everything they have. And who and what the government wants can change quicker than you might imagine (see how the Texas government is going after women having miscarriages, for example)

Having my job security dictated by an LLM (which is what most AI enhanced products are right now) sounds like a dystopian hell.

Interesting, do you have a picture of this project in action?

Multiple whistleblowers have been raising concerns about Boeing safety and build quality issues for several years, so for you to say "so what, there have been issues on Boeing planes for several years" actually reinforces the "Boeing narrative". If there are multiple people on the inside raising alarm bells, there probably is some substance there. Finally the problems are getting big enough that they can't just be swept under the rug anymore.

Could you explain the difference and how you use GPT4? If all you're doing is hitting the GPT4 api, I don't see how it's different.

And, of course, you wouldn't know that your mind is being poisoned with hallucinate half-truths. Maybe you can pick some out because of prior knowledge, but what about the ones you can't? What about the little things you learn that you don't deem important enough to verify, but then remember later without remembering that they snuck in through an untrusted source? That's precisely the danger - you can't accurately tell truth from fiction, and the stuff you already know isn't the stuff you're asking about (otherwise you wouldn't be asking)

It smells like a scam, because they can suddenly bill any user they want for a scary number like $100,000, then when the user complains they "generously" reduce that to only 5%, or $5,000, hoping the user will just pay the massively reduced cost. This kind of thing - showing a huge number upfront then reducing it to a "small" number - is a classic scam.

Who controls the DDOS bots? Are they truly a separate entity? There is no direct evidence to link them together, but you would think that an honest company would be more proactive in preventing problems like this for their customers.

According to the linked reddit story, this is a known issue with Netlify and their response to past incidents is basically to pound sand. It all adds up to them purposefully trying to find ways to generate a high bill for their customers and hoping a small amount will pay for it.

"Companies employing people" getting replaced by anything is pretty dangerous in an economic system where employment is synonymous with having food and shelter. It won't matter that AI could help me keep a to-do list or generate pretty videos if I don't have a job or income.

What we're looking at is a massive decrease in the relative economic value of the average human's work. If the economic value of a hundred people is less than what the company can produce with a single human operator running AI models, then those 100 people are economically worthless, and don't get to eat.

We drastically need to tax the usage of AI models on the huge windfall they're about to create for their operators, and use that to fund universal basic income for those displaced. Generally speaking, as automation and wealth disparity skyrocket, UBI will be required to maintain any semblance of the society we currently have. I am incredibly pessimistic about the chances of that happening in any real way though.

In what ways has image generation been solved? Prompt blocking is about the only real effort I can think of, which will mean nothing once open source models reach the same fidelity.

Forgive me for thinking that it may be difficult for independent artists to compete against the trillion-dollar groundbreaking plagiarism machine that is actively plagiarizing their work faster than they can produce original work, without consequence, and suffocating them under a deluge of generated works.

This is an extremely different difference of scale, which does constitute a meaningful difference from prior technologies.

The social safety net component of your idea is both extremely important and not at all likely in the modern ultra-capitalist, "even healthcare is socialist extremism" political atmosphere.

Maybe mass unemployment will create a sea change in that mentality, but most of the people who's opinions need to be changed will probably just laugh at "the elites" getting screwed over.