jensensbutton

> We should be able to implement services like these, that are free of ads, on globally distributed infrastructure, with no central authority, to have truly free-flowing information.

Who's going to pay for and operate it? And why won't they be subject to the same pressures that got us here?

Big difference is that the vast majority of people in China did not _choose_ to live under that model and can't easily try a different model to see which they like more.

Lot of people who were hoping for Facebook's demise are going to be sorely disappointed this year.

No they don't. They only prevent tracking _across_ apps. Facebook will track everything you do and show you just as many ads in their properties as they did before. This really does harm smaller companies more than Facebook.

There's an argument to be made that "tracking" has had less real world harm to humanity than the push to get rid of it. Real harm will come to people/business through loss of income due to the clamp down on tracking. Not to mention that ads are the foundation of all the content we get for "free" that we've come to rely on.

A problem of their own making.

Windows is literally the last consumer OS to get on this train. Seems they have learned. From their competitors.

Apple's biggest engine for growth is services. Even they are clear about that.

> And besides, I wanted to give Windows 11 a fair chance

So they went ahead and used pre-release (not even alpha) software that is explicitly not for folks who want stability to give it a "fair chance". Sounds like great judgement from OP.

Why politics and not practicality? Taking a ton of time and resources (and potentially risking attrition) to migrate a thing that works to a thing that _hopefully_ works often simply doesn't make business sense. It's not a political decision (in the common usage of the word).

Wouldn't it be the people publishing code written with Copilot that (potentially) violate any licenses? It doesn't seem to be that the tool violates anything, though it may put the _user_ at risk of violating something.

Like, don't use it if you're worried about violating licenses, but I don't see how Microsoft could get in trouble for the tool. It doesn't write and publish code by itself.

What are you mad at, exactly? That people want to minimize the number of mistakes ML systems make due to skewed training data? Or that people don't want known problems to be baked into decision making systems that will impact real people?

Who are the SJWs here? Other people with PhDs that have different opinions from you? Did they ruin your research? Did they make OpenAI stop what they're doing?

Are you sure it's not your sense of reality that's distorted?

At my FAANG they did studies and on average people are working MORE hours each day since the switch to WFH. If they were concerned about maximizing hours then they'd leave it as in. I suspect there are other concerns.

Interestingly enough I think Ops work is far more resilient to automation than SWE work.

You seem to be bringing a lot of personal baggage with you in your comment. Maybe you should just not comment on Microsoft related posts.

On the web you are explicitly choosing (i.e. clicking a link or typing a URL) to go places that show you advertising in exchange for providing whatever content or service you when there to see. This is why many argue (coherently) that using ad blockers are an act of theft. I actually think the latter is a much stronger argument than what you're putting forth.

I'd love to see more discussion about what success actually looks like for content moderation on facebook (or the internet, really).

We don't seem to care that the legal system doesn't get remotely close to catching everyone who commits an ACTUAL crime so why do we need to be perfect (whatever that even means) for content moderation?

You have no attachment to the content you see on Tik Tok. Facebook and Instagram are social network based. Tik Tok is not.