The amount and severity of such concerning topics still lets you agree that these are just "statements that are subject to judgement" and "interpretations more than facts"?
I encourage critical thinking and fairness but if a coin lands on one side 100 times in a row I don't need to flip it forever to see if eventually it reaches 50/50. That many lies about extremely serious issues removes any benefit of the doubt for the liar.
> Both sides can be true simultaneously. You can invest a lot and produce no results.
Evidence show that Meta can be very effective at achieving the results that drive profits. It's already suspicious when they fail exactly at the ones that would lower profits. Even more when you consider the rest of the evidence which shows intention to hide the "failure". That breaks trust and you're just choosing to believe that the lie that they got caught with must have been the only one.
Short of universal laws almost anything can go both ways. But when one is overwhelmingly more likely you can make a concession and agree Zuck was lying a lot in there.
You're bending over backwards to muddy the waters with vague "it could go both ways" statements.
Likely a lie but also they do have tools, they're just inefficient. When you have 10 other examples that are undeniable, might as well remove the ones that can be challenged, let alone open with it, or you open yourself to very standard rebuttal PR strategies that focus on these.
> Likely a lie but also they do have tools, they're just inefficient
This is the exact problem, they could solve the issue by spending a lot more money. They could hire enough human content reviews to keep up, they could force all content to go through review before it can be posted.
But those things break their business model. If you take away their ability to externalize these cost by harming society, it turns out Facebook isn't a viable business.
From this perspective, every dollar they make, all those billions that Zuckerberg is "worth" is simply value extraction at our expense.
Which is why he will do absolutely everything to protect it. It's so far beyond giving him the benefit of the doubt. To know what he knows and continue to operate Facebook like this is moving into the territory of being pure evil.
> LinkedIn is a masquerade ball dressed up as a business oriented forum. Nobody is showing their true selves
That's the main trait of almost all social media. A parade of falsity, putting on the show for everyone else, being what you wish you were and what everyone else dreams of being or envies.
LinkedIn is about boasting and boosting the professional life, other social media is for the personal life. More or less equally fake.
They are everywhere. Knowing the old “Germany is the land of privacy” I was shocked to walk about in many neighborhoods, from pretty run down to affluent, and see Ring, Nest, Arlo, all cloud connected cameras hanging over doors but turned more towards the public road in front of the house.
Even if they do, “crime scene” camera footage is less useful than the victims expect. Cameras discourage thieves of opportunity but not someone who has their mind set on taking your stuff. A simple cap or mask, some sunglasses, a few strips of reflective tape, a WiFi deauther, cheap and accessible stuff like this make the practical usefulness of most home camera systems limited at best to the owner understanding what and how it happened.
That’s why police looks to piece together from a larger surveillance network. Maybe you can’t see the face on the home camera but in another camera down the road, or a license plate on the getaway car down the street, or an accomplice without disguise. They want everyone to have cameras and then they can abuse the system.
Friends showed me high quality close up footage of someone stealing their bike. Absolutely useless, all you saw was an average guy that you wouldn’t recognize if you walked past on the street.
> The reason big tech holds their leads today is not innovation, but critical mass combined with user entrapment.
And regulatory capture by the incumbent. Reach the top then push for regulation behind you. Thats’s one big additional obstacle to overcome for a new player.
OpenAI was so willing to support regulating AI just as soon as they thought they’ve gained enough of an advantage over the competition and they can burn the bridge behind them.
The warranty/guarantee is different from the average lifetime of the device, which is defined in the law as the average period a device must maintain its working parameters stated by the manufacturer.
In some countries a fridge is expected to have a lifetime of 10 years but a warranty of 2 years. So in theory if you could prove that the fridge cannot meet the expected average lifetime, the cooling ability decreases below the stated parameters much earlier, then it becomes the manufacturer’s responsibility.
You are correct, I wanted to say the manufacturer is ultimately responsible. The consumer deals directly with the seller but the manufacturer still takes over when the seller doesn't exist anymore.
> failed hilariously in many instances, is currently not private, and crashes all the time, a (not yet) walking, talking CVE
Is actually doing a better job than not doing any of that at all? This isn’t a life or death situation where something is better than nothing out of desperation. Sometimes if you can’t do it right it’s better to not do it at all. Better to wait for the full meal instead of having a “slop snack”.
I can do a terrible job at transplanting brains in robotic bodies. Terrible. Which is more than any company can do so yay?
Some things are worse than nothing in terms of quality or liability.
Yes, it's significantly better than nobody doing any of this for me, and the important thing for the purpose of this prediction is that the error rate still seems to be going down exponentially with time.
> This isn’t a life or death situation where something is better than nothing out of desperation.
That's exactly where it would make sense to try a new thing then, no?
> I can do a terrible job at transplanting brains in robotic bodies.
Sounds like a much more high stakes activity than telling me factoids around my travel itinerary, so I agree that we shouldn't have you run the neurosurgery department yet, yes.
> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years
Budgets are limited so they can't give to everyone all the time. They give each batch of artists money for 3 years and then move to the next batch. Interesting to see if there's a chance they start looping over.
I encourage critical thinking and fairness but if a coin lands on one side 100 times in a row I don't need to flip it forever to see if eventually it reaches 50/50. That many lies about extremely serious issues removes any benefit of the doubt for the liar.
reply