rubyfan

Yes it looks that way

At that level they call it financial engineering.

Right the intention was to stop unchecked surveillance capitalism, now they use the normalcy of annoyance to wear you down such that you auto accept terms that you probably wouldn’t agree to if you read them. That’s what they want now.

This and other bad behavior will only go away when government says, “no this is predatory and you can’t do it” instead of saying “everything is OK if the user consents to it”.

Surprise, they all are!

It wasn’t ever about illegal immigration. It’s a way to make the position sound logical and tolerable. Now the goal post is moving to make only certain people legal.

> You make it sound like writing good requirements is easy.

I am certain I didn’t say that. To be a good product owner one needs skill, care and understanding of the business intent. If you know the business intent but lack the skill to express it as a useful requirement then it’s insufficient; if you have the skill but lack understanding or ability to understand the business intent then it’s insufficient; if you have the skill and understand the business intent but you are careless in your work then it’ll be insufficient too. If the problem space is emergent then having all three might not be good enough either.

It’s certainly true that good engineering teams can deeply understand the problem space enough to get to a business outcome without requirement documents.

I just wouldn’t bet that LLMs are going to make any of these realities any better, they might exacerbate those issues.

We now have product owners trying to farm out their work to an LLM. The process didn’t work before because the person writing the requirements either put out vague requirements or bad requirements because they didn’t understand the business intent (or were careless).

LLMs just take the same vague or poor requirements and make them look believable until you dig in to them.

That’s a gross over generalization. Some of the insurance data here suggests use of AI to make underwriting decisions. There are several states with regulations which could potentially pull these agent solutions into their regulatory oversight if used by the industry to effect insurance outcomes.

“Silent” seems appropriate given it historically never required such a large storage requirement and the nature of the new feature seems entirely optional; and it’s happening silently as part of a normal upgrade.

I watched the James Bond movie Spectre recently and came away feeling like the Spectre organization and Ernst Stavro Blofeld were modeled on Palatir.

sounds delicious

My guess is people put up with this shit because the job market is terrible right now and most other workplaces in big tech will follow suite soon.

The Zuckerberg quote from the article reads like someone running for class president in high school.

> helps you achieve your goals, create what you want to see in the world, experience any adventure, be a better friend to those you care about, and grow to become the person you aspire to be.

… If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true. Thank you.

the power of yet

Why do we allow this?

The pardon is limited to federal offenses, state prosecution is still viable.

Nothing will happen until the mid terms or 2028.

This administration highlights why the pardon provisions of the constitution need amendment.

Yeah it is. What I mean is the default is you have not opted in. You must choose to opt in for this type of tracking. It should be a choice that doesn’t preclude you from using a service if you don’t allow tracking.

Right, privacy terms are written to be vague and permissive. Even if you read them you can’t usually understand how the data will be used or opt out.

I think we should make this type of tracking opt-out by default. We should also ban the sale of its use to third parties and its use for purposes other than the specific functionality which required it to be enabled in the first place.

BoA issued me a new card after a fraudulent charge, the next year on the same date the same fraudulent charge showed up (annual billing cycle). This happened for more than three years because after they issued a new card they updated the service that billed the fraud with the new number.

Is this just the same kind of optimization? Consumers trying to optimize their margin while producers are trying to optimize theirs?

It leads to enshitification due to short term thinking but in the short term seems like a good decision.

How can you tell?

One could imagine a scenario where this is a political action group response to defying the administration. I have no evidence to support that, just could imagine it because the potential individual return to customers is minuscule.

It's only called Pro so they can charge you a Pro rate.

Is this like how company's sell drugs or lab products and say it's "not for human consumption" or "for research purposes only"?

The distinction is likely a claw back to give themselves just that ability to freely advertise to you after telling you it was ad free. Like what’s the difference advertising a subsidiary like Disney parks to me or a new car? Just that they own the former.

It’s like how Disney Plus “ad free” tier shows you ads for Hulu and Disney Perks. They probably redefine “ad” in their terms of service so their own ads are called something else.

I agree the article could include more data around the frequency and size of these kind of trades around other events and for a longer period.

However as the article notes the time and size of this particular series of trades makes it look suspicious and that’s all one can say with certainty at this point.

Or the settlements goes to the state and no one ever sees a dollar.