You're meta trolling now.
124 karma · joined August 27, 2023
Why don't you ask Google if fish are animals? You absolute moron.
Friend 2: In my fish tank I have fish, turtles, and snails.
They've been invading their neighbors for 200 years, at some point their neighbors got together and promised collective mutual defense. They can claim NATO is the bad guys, but they don't have much credibility at this stage. Stalin was claiming "capitalist encirclement" already in the late 1920s, way before NATO existed.
You know just because one side says one thing and the other says another thing, this isn't something unknowable, right? Russia complains about NATO - how many times has NATO invaded Russia? Now how many times has Russia invaded its neighbors? In just the last 10 years Russia has occupied Georgia, bombed Moldova, and invaded Ukraine. If they don't like all their neighbors joining an alliance maybe they shouldn't keep invading. Use some critical thinking dude.
Any idea if this ludicrous situation is the same in Norway, Finland, Denmark?
What the actual fuck.
> They fear that the availability of even unrealistic AI-generated CSAM will "support the growth of the child exploitation market by normalizing child abuse and stoking the appetites of those who seek to sexualize children."
This is something which is plausible. Whether the effect exists or not, and how large it is is not something we're going to learn by arguing about it on the Internet.
This has to be one of the bullshittiest jobs in existence. A more accurate description would be "director of changing things around". Think about it, people with job descriptions like this can't afford to NOT make changes. If a new one comes in and his first order of action is to say "I think theb logo is just fine, there's no reason to change it", his income is in trouble. The only way to keep his job is to change things around and hope he doesn't fuck up too much.
Even if you're willing to leak secrets, you have first to find yourself in the position to have access to the secrets. As a leaker, it's extremely unlikely that Snowden will ever find himself in that situation a second time. You know this, and yet you pretend that you're making a point.
Right, in principle I don't strongly disagree with you. Certainly in the short term the intelectual dishonesty bothers me more than making money by bumping up results.
But whether that is a real issue or not, depends on how relevant Google is in our society. If there's alternatives, people can try them. If there's no alternatives, having the power to control the results to benefit yourself is maybe too much power concentrated in too few hands. It's unclear to me where we stand right now. I haven't used Google search in many years (DDG), but I'm aware they're hugely influential to basically everyone else.
Even before google was founded and the founders discussed how they could monetize their search, they understood that paid ads create a conflict of interest: the point of search which is to to return the most relevant results, but the incentive in paid ads is to return the best paying ads. One of their papers contains this point _in writing_.
However, every single time I pointed this out to a person working at google they immediately jump into Olympic level acrobatics to explain why the two things are not in conflict. I especially enjoy hearing the argument that in a free market the most relevant advertiser also happens be the one who can afford to pay the most. I've never worked at Google, but I would bet that part of their induction is to train their employees how to combat these ideas.
Anyway big picture google isn't one of the worst.