jonathanstrange

I agree with that. If profiling-based ads were allowed, minors would no longer receive ads for booze and porn. They'd have to ask their older brother about the real internet, which is embarrassing.

You're technically right but the point was merely made to illustrate that these companies have plenty of money to deal with civil lawsuits and offer settlements. I hope you don't doubt that.

I was referring to their current market valuation. Of course, it could be inflated, yet it's a fact that they could easily spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lawsuits and settlements. I'd think they'd offer some settlements to some the companies that were attacked already. Perhaps I'm wrong, though.

For anyone like me who started reading science fictions as a kid, that story is a very old hat. So far, AI only seems to solve problems that you tell it to solve, and you have to carefully guide it to get results. So for now the claim seems exaggerated and still in the realm of science fiction.

By the way, there is another problem. For humans we have the saying "garbage in, garbage out." If you read a lot of trash, you will only come up with trash. If you give powerful tools to morons, they will not become geniuses. That's not just true for humans, it's also the case for AI. If you teach your AI trash, it's going to be some trashy AI. Since people do that all the time for various reasons, we're going to have a lot of artificial stupidity, too.

They're US companies and I've heard that it requires intent according to US penal law. I find the article's claim that intent is established dubious. Since this is hard to prove without a whistleblower, it seems that they only have to fear civil lawsuits, and given that we speak of trillion+ USD companies they might feel confident to be able to fend these off or simply pay out the victims in settlements.

His interviews. You have to watch many of them, which is kind of hard since he's such a bad public speaker, but I still find personalities like him entertaining and he used to have moderately interesting laymen science fiction ideas before he turned to self-destructive radical Twitter psycho politics as a hobby.

Sounds awful but I appreciate the technical aspects of the post.

Now I understand the misunderstanding here. I'm fine with protecting everything by user-chosen permissions. As long as the end user has full control over them, file permissions, access control lists, and fine-grained internet controls are perfectly fine. My operating system has all of that. What I rigorously reject is when the makers of an operating system restrict access without giving the end user full control over everything. That should in my opinion be prohibited. The user's full control must also be easy to exert to prevent malicious compliance.

So maybe I misunderstood you and there is no disagreement at all. Of course, I think file permissions and protected memory can make sense.

Please read my comment again, it was about access to files and the internet. Protected memory is not related to that.

Musk is well-known for spending lots of money on viral marketing and online reputation services with bot accounts and astro-turfing. He has an extremely fragile ego and a pathological desire to be liked and, oddly, he desires to be considered a funny person, too (which he isn't). To cut a long story short, you cannot and should not trust comment sections about Musk anywhere. It's been like that for more than 10 years already.

This is just like the ad-blocker discussion and Nitter is just as fine as ad blockers. Sometimes official sources make announcements via services they should be prohibited by law from using, so you need to buy into the sour apple and read these announcements by other means, whether that means using an ad blocker or Nitter. There is no copyright infringement because X does not hold the copyright on the (vast majority) of that content.

Also worth noting: I click on Nitter links but I would never in my life click on an "X" link. When I use Nitter, X loses zero ad revenue.

Not if I have anything to say about it. I want programs on my computing device to be able to access files and roam the internet at free will. In fact, I insist on it.

IMHO it's more ethical to block ads than not to block them because if you don't block them you're supporting unethical business models such as massive privacy invasions by collecting and selling user data, ad-based malware delivery, and scams.

> structural and presentation templates in the form of traditions of the research area

AFAIK, people are complaining about the lack of this.

The original post, the above story about the German Bundeswehr. They are screening for right-wing extremists, not right-wing people. It's in the headline of the HN post and in the headline of the article linked. That is the reason why I corrected your comment. Your comment is and was completely off-topic and displays a complete lack of understanding of the article and the reason why German Bundeswehr is screening for right-wing extremists. (Not that I think using AI for this is a good idea.)

To provide some background as an example, a member of the German Kommando Spezialkräfte (KSK) was arrested last year as a member of a right-wing terrorist group that planned to overthrow the government. That's just an example, there are many more.

Now do everyone a favor and stop commenting on articles you obviously haven't read, especially when you display not the slightest knowledge of the context.

Yes, and the original post was about screening for right-wing extremism, not "right wingers." That's why I corrected you. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

But human papers follow templates...? (Both literal templates based on editorial and org guidelines and structural and presentation templates in the form of traditions of the research area.)

I feel like I'm going mad looking at this page. The bike disassembly looks fake to me, like an alien would show presumed bike parts, but I can't tell why and don't know much about bikes. Maybe it's because there are no screws and nuts?

What is it supposed to demonstrate? That the model knows some kind of folk mereology?

You dropped the extremism part, which always implies "anti-constitutional" in these contexts and by law.

Contrary to what you insinuate, the indicators for right wing extremism are well-defined.[1]

[1] https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/publikationen/EN...

Rosetta 2 is going to be removed entirely just like Rosetta has been removed. Complete removal is scheduled for macOS 28, except, oddly, for a few legacy games.

Exactly, I remember getting similar replies - though probably on /. then - when the PPC emulator was removed, there are always some people eager to ridicule the idea and portray it as not being feasible. But it is. It is perfectly doable for a company like Apple with a net worth around $4.87 trillion and would probably take less disk space then the AI models their customers now try to remove because they don't need them. As ridiculous as this may sound to the naysayers, I desire very much for an operating system to keep backwards compatibility forever, it can be done and would be very useful for many people.

I didn't want the PPC emulator removed and I don't want the x86 emulator to be removed either. If that makes me a weirdo, so be it.

It's not a temporary tool for people who need it.

I find it bizarre how Apple continuously ignores Steve Job's visions and seems to get away with it. I really expected there to be a little box that talks with people, is highly intelligent, and helps them to organize their daily lives. They could call it Isaac or something like that.

Yet what's new from Apple? A little color flyer design app. That would have rocked in the 1980s!

If there is one thing I absolutely despise with all of my heart, then it's mega corporations patronizing their paying customers.

Is there a trick to get them moving? They're just static on my firefox and chromium.

Sorry this is a bit of a long rant. To many people here this will be a very old hut but I've only recently realized that Apple and Google are basically extortion rackets and have made the online world way worse and enshittified than it should be. Why? They deliberately make it as hard as possible to sell true cross-platform apps. "Buy one license, install our software on all of your devices." That should sound reasonable, yet it's impossible as a business model. If you put an app on the Apple Store or on Google Play, you cannot have it unlocked by a license code. So you have to sell it on their platform. That means that if you want to sell one license for all platforms, you'd have to force your users to buy the license in one of those stores, then generate desktop license from that store purchase. That's not just nonsense, it still wouldn't work because the user can still not switch from iOS to Android and vice versa.

Okay, so sell mobile platforms separately but make desktop platforms with one license. That would still be nice and comparatively hassle-free for your customers. Not so fast, though! Desktop app stores also prohibit free apps with unlock mechanism. So you have to put unlockable versions on your website. However, app stores explicitly prohibit even just mentioning that the user doesn't have to buy an app if they have already bought it elsewhere. They strictly prohibit pointing the user elsewhere to check whether they could use it for free. Consequently, unless your users are extremely well educated about those platform quirks, many of them will erroneously buy your app twice.

But wait! There is an exception in Apple Store and Google Play Store. You're strictly prohibited from putting an app on there that needs to be unlocked by a license key, but you are allowed to ask the user to create an account or log into an existing account with a user name and email address. As long as users can also purchase the app on the respective store, that's allowed. So you can tie the app to an account and unlock it if the user already bought it for another platform. For some reason, unlocking an app with a code is strictly prohibited but unlocking it by providing your email and a password and then contacting a server is totally fine. That's why so many apps have those shitty login requirements. I wasn't really aware of that.

In a nutshell, apart from "freemium models" there are two major ways to sell cross-platform software that really is cross-platform. First, make the user pay individually for each platform, make them buy your app again and again with all the hassle that brings. Second, force them to login with an email and a user name with some direct contact to some centralized hub server.

IMHO, all of these options are strictly worse than just allowing your users to buy the app anywhere they like and unlock it for all other platforms.

There is not even an overlap between those skills. That's why companies employ graphic designers and not just developers.

The Chinese models are cheaper and probably soon are going to be better, too. They're also open weight, which is the most important thing in the future. US companies are no longer considered safe enough against industrial espionage outside the US and do not meet mandatory data protection standards elsewhere. There have also been known incidents of direct interference with US models for propaganda/political purposes (e.g. Elon Musk admitted to doing that), making US models a fairly direct threat to EU sovereignty.

I cannot understand why these companies haven't faced legal consequences yet. For example, OpenAI has admitted to hacking Australia's Medicare website and the reaction is that they talk with Sam Altman about it at a UN meeting? I understand that it's not a big security incident but cordial talking at the highest diplomatic level instead of prosecuting the company, really?