Never attribute to malice what can reasonably be attributed to the stupidity, hate, and pig-headedness of an exceptionally fragile billionaire.
Never attribute to malice what can reasonably be attributed to the stupidity, hate, and pig-headedness of an exceptionally fragile billionaire.
There’s self-hosted LLMs, (e.g. Ollama), but for the purposes of this conversation, yeah - they’re centrally hosted, compute intensive software services.
Unlike regular piracy, accessing “their” product hosted on their servers using their power and compute is pretty clearly theft. Morally correct theft that I wholeheartedly support, but theft nonetheless.
Yeah - that’s all part of the “unless enough people leave” point.
It really depends on the market though - if it’s not an essential good, it doesn’t need to be replaced (online games). If there’s adequate competition, there’s largely undifferentiated alternatives (utilities around me)… and if not, you probably don’t have a choice (your local government services, monopolies, and shallow markets for essential goods).
Unless they hate it enough to ditch a business or service in great enough numbers that it costs the business more money than they save by outsourcing to a computer, people had better get used to it.
What’s hard to understand is why you skipped the question I asked, and answered a different one instead.
The creation of the CSAM is unquestionably far more harmful, but I wasn’t talking about the *creation *- I was talking about the possession. The harm of the creation is already done, and whether or not the material exists after that does nothing to undo that harm.
Again, is your prescription the same as it relates to the possession, not generation of CSAM?
Strange of you to respond to a comment about the fakes being shared in this way…
Do you have the same prescriptions in relation to someone with a stash of CSAM, and if not, why not?
The internet made photos of trump and putin kissing shirtless.
And is that OK?
I’m going to jump in on this one and say yes - it’s mostly fine.
I look at these things through the lens of the harm they do and the benefits they deliver - consequentialism and act utilitarianism.
The benefits are artistic, comedic and political.
The “harm” is that Putin and or Trump might feel bad, maaaaaaybe enough that they’d kill themselves. All that gets put back up under benefits as far as I’m concerned - they’re both extremely powerful monsters that have done and will continue to do incredible harm.
The real harm is that such works risk normalising this treatment of regular folk, which is genuinely harmful. I think that’s unlikely, but it’s impossible to rule out.
Similarly, the dissemination of the kinds of AI fakes under discussion is a negative because they do serious,measurable harm.
Why would anyone want the cybertruck? Yet at present, it’ll take them over a year to clear their backlog.
Some people are just dumb - that applies doubly for those that love Musk because he speaks the Nazi conspiracism Truth™.
The whole tablet UI switching had huge potential - particularly for 2-in-ones and to a lesser extent, mobile devices, but Microsoft absolutely butchered it in its infancy with atrocious execution, and by having the hubris to hobble their primary use-case (desktop) for the sake of pushing their half-baked nonsense into the mobile market. Users didn’t do themselves any favours by not understanding that you could just hit start then type the first couple of letters of what you want to launch (what kind of website double-clicking weirdo clicks through the whole start menu without pinned links or search anyway?).
To me, it all reeks of designers/PMs/devs putting forward a super-promising concept, which was ruined by a bunch of overpaid MBA dipshits that thought they knew better.
Welcome to Lemmy - where everything is made up and the points don’t matter.
Oh no!
…Anyway.
Hoists Jolly Roger
You don’t visit the site when you punch a query into your browser search bar.
Ultimately, Google are making the change they are because they know how deceptive they were being. Google knows it, I know it, Google seems concerned the courts know it, I’m not sure why you’d choose to dig in on this one.
That lack of delineation is also an issue, but a separate one. That said, I’d think an average user would think doing a Google search from an incog tab would be anonymised and not tied to them because of the privacy incog grants (or more accurately, doesn’t). There’s reasonable arguments to be made on either side of this point, but I think that Google have been intentionally misleading - which is now creating problems for them, motivating this change.
Again, all the information Google present when opening an incog tab would lead someone to the conclusion that Google won’t track them. Unless I’m mistaken, when this came up years back, Google explicitly denied tracking people in incognito mode, and they’re only changing their disclaimers now in response to a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.
No thoughts on the perception they seem to be crafting very deliberately?
To be clear, I was aware of the risk thanks to previous reports and my work in the cybersecurity space. I’m talking about the average user.
The name is deceptive, and explicitly calling out a list of parties that may see your traffic without naming themselves is deceptive.
It’s akin to a guard saying beware doors 1 and 3 - there are dragons behind them. If you hear this from an authority that would know, you’d probably assume there’s not a dragon behind door 2, or they would have said so.
The perception of “the man on the street” is a common legal standard that I’d argue Google has fallen short of here.
I don’t use Chrome because I don’t trust Google. I assumed they were tracking users based on previous reports.
I’m saying that i think a reasonable person would expect that their incognito browsing traffic wouldn’t be monitored and passed to Google. This reasonable person standard is the legal standard for advertising and marketing claims in my country and many others.
The disclaimer explicitly calls out that your activity might still be visible to sites, you visit, your employer or school, and your ISP - they notably say nothing about Google. That kind of thing is very misleading.
Where in that disclaimer (or otherwise) would I get the impression Google will track me?
Expected incognito functionality sits in the gaping chasm between actual incognito functionality and TOR. When I’m being told I can go incognito - you know, sneaky, in disguise, I don’t expect to have all of my activity broadcast back to those that say I’m incognito.
Of course, trusting current Google is foolish, but that doesn’t make it less deceptive.
Pissing away 40bn - 15% of your net worth to own the libs by destroying a company you were forced to buy requires an incredible degree of stupidity. Imagine the damage a remotely competent malicious narcissist could do with that kind of money.
For context, the 2016 election cost $6.5bn - for both sides, presidential and congressional elections - that comfortably buys you a quarter century of elections - and if the GOP has power for that long, at this point, there won’t be another election to fund.
Musk clearly has sub-normal IQ - there’s no shame in that, but he has no shortage of other reasons to be ashamed of himself.