11·
2 months agosays CEO
Since when do CEOs do things because they’re actually useful and not because they want to cut costs at the expense of the workers and even the public?
Cyber Yuki
General nerd, programmer and sci-fi reader and writer. Neurodivergent, ADHD.
She/her.
- 0 Posts
- 83 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 30th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Oh no, I know where this story leads…
Today:
I’m excited to announce that Beeper has been acquired by Automattic.
Tomorrow:
We’re excited to announce that Automattic has been acquired by (Insert megacorp here).
Later:
Beeper personnel laid off; project discontinued
Just you wait.
The fact that we’re reading and commenting about it on Lemmy is satisfying, despite the sadness of the situation. It’s like watching the city burn after you moved away and saying “wow, I guess I really took the right choice by leaving.”
“Let’s treat our workers like slaves or else the entire economy will suffer” is a far worse take IMHO.
-
Establish a wage floor.
-
Establish a price cap.
If the corporation can’t make a profit from this, then perhaps their business model was not viable in the first place.
-
By decreasing billionaire executive bonuses, of course. You realize apps like Uver give shitty pay to the drivers and keep most of the profits for the execs, don’t you?
Repeat after me: They are MIDDLEMEN.
Did the ordinance specify that the app companies would have to absorb the costs and NOT pass them to the users? No? Ah, well, that explains it then.
As a decentralized platform, Bluesky’s code is completely open source,
As long as a company is in control, being decentralized doesn’t mean shit.
It can be mass produced in very little time.
Show me an application of Generative AI for teaching right now. As in, already existing.
What constitutes fair use?
17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
GenAI training, at least regarding art, is neither criticism, comment, news reporting scholarship, nor research.
AI training is not done by scientists but engineers of a corporative entity with a long term profit goal.
So, by elimination, we can conclude that none of the purposes covered by the fair use doctrine apply to Generative AI training.
Q.E.D.
xkcd warned us and that didn’t listen.
An HP Printer is a bad investment.
No, but we can build it. It’s called a Directory. This is how Yahoo! worked before it got enshittified and eventually replaced by Google search.
Fuck, I got 50%. If others had the same result, you can guess the implications.
There’s few things that can inspire as much fear in the population as the phrase “gone rogue” applied to AI.
Example. (HZD spoilers)
Planned obsolescence.
For Google, hosting an app is just a matter of keeping an entry in a database and its data in storage. It’s not about the difficulty.
Furthermore, that app COST MONEY to the user. Here Google is not only removing the app from the store, they’re also UNINSTALLING it from the user’s device, without warning them, and without compensating them financially for this.
To make things even worse, their malware detection algorithm is prone to false positives. There’s not even a degree of certainty, like “there’s a 20% chance we could be making a mistake.” A binary without tolerance means they are removing things only on the SUSPICION they could be malware.
I had a very useful open source app - that I installed WITHOUT Google play store - removed from my phone. It was never submitted to Google and neither the author nor I EVER agreed to their app store remove third party software from my phone.
Google have become control freaks over our phones. The only solution I see is to install a third party OS, like Lineage or Graphene. I might even have to buy a new phone for this, but I don’t care. I don’t want Google to assume the role of Nanny and take away control of MY devices that I bought with my own fucking money.
At this point, I’d like to ask: If a foreign company threatens democracy in a country, is it legal for the executive to ban business with that company?
No? Then that doesn’t make sense. It’s a FOREIGN company, the government should have the right to do whatever it needs to protect its citizens in that regard.