"Filter" is a Tik-tok / snapchat / instagram parlance for any kind of overlay / transformation. It's grown larger than just sepia filters and similar. All the ones that do facial tracking and overlay a mustache or w/e is funny in the moment are also referred to as filters.
Cheeseburgers are everywhere, are addictive to some, and eventually eating enough will kill you.
Put another way: If McDonalds sees I eat 5 cheeseburgers a day, at what point do they have to stop serving me for my own health? Do they need to step in at all?
If Facebook knows I'm scrolling 6 hours a day, at what point do they have to stop serving me?
Cheeseburgers are not everywhere. I'm sitting at my desk, social media is here but cheeseburgers are not. Social media is always with me other than in the shower. Cheeseburgers are not.
I can get a cheeseburger delivered, or there's a dozen places within a 15 minute walk to get one. I can hardly leave the house without seeing an ad for one or some other fast food item on the side of a bus. I can't avoid being hungry, but I can leave my phone at home.
Sure it's a matter of degrees but I don't see a bright line between McDonald's and tiktok. Both want me hooked on their product. Both have harmful aspects. Both have customers they know are over-indulging. Why would only tiktok be liable for that?
If I had to walk for 15 minutes or pay a hefty delivery fee to access social media, my usage would be massively lower. If there was a cheeseburger in my hand all day every day I would be a lot fatter.
If people never felt full from food, food was always instantly available in your pocket, and food costed no money to obtain, I believe McDonalds and TikTok would be very equivalent. Likely McDonalds would even be far worse since people would probably be dying to it daily.
That's the bright line. The lack of any barrier to entry.
> Put another way: If McDonalds sees I eat 5 cheeseburgers a day, at what point do they have to stop serving me for my own health? Do they need to step in at all?
Is McDonald's adjusting the flavour and ingredients of each cheeseburger it serves you with the express purpose of encouraging you to order the next one as soon as possible?
They are constantly evolving the menu and it's entirely data-driven, so yes? It's not down to the person level like tiktok but if they could, it would be.
So compared to TikTok and algorithms the answer is no then? If they could I agree they would, but they can't target food on the same level that TikTok does.
How is the cheeseburger that you receive differently tailored to your own addiction than the cheeseburger that the following customer will receive is to theirs?
Advertisement serves an important purpose. If you were a farmer with a mule and the tractor salesman came by for the first time, that would be life-changing for you. You wouldn't say that salesman was evil for advertising his tractor.
Fair enough, there is some utility to it. But we're quite along way from traveling salesmen advertising tractors. Maybe it doesn't need to be eliminated, just heavily regulated.
What if the salesman said knowingly lied about his tractors? or poisoned the farmer's mules to influence him towards buying one? That'd be on the scale of evil, right?
The poster above me suggested advertising is inherently evil and should be abolished, I was just countering that absolutist position.
I don't disagree that there are absolutely some awful ads out there, and that they should be regulated heavily. I've been getting so many ads for semaglutide on tiktok lately that seem designed to prey on people with eating disorders. Whoever is behind those is evil.
> Where does the line fall between provider responsibility when providing a tool that can produce protected work, and personal responsibility for causing it to generate that work?
If you operate the tool, you are responsible. Doubly so in a commercial setting. If there are issues like Copyright and CSAM, they are your responsibility to resolve.
If Elon wanted to share out an executable for Grok and the user ran it on their own machine, then he could reasonably sidestep blame (like how photoshop works). But he runs Grok on his own servers, therefore is morally culpable for everything it does.
Your servers are a direct extension of yourself. They are only capable of doing exactly what you tell them to do. You owe a duty of care to not tell them to do heinous shit.
There's no particular reason an Auth system must be designed like counterexample #2. There's many ways to design that system and avoid cycles. You can leverage caching of role information - propagated via messages/bus, JWT's with roles baked-in and IDP's you trust, etc. Hitting an Auth service for every request is chaotic and likely a source of issue.
You don't necessarily need to hit the auth service on every request, but every service will ultimately depend on the auth service somewhere in its dependencies.
If you have two separate systems that depend on the auth system, and something depends on both, you have violated the polytree property.
You shouldn't depend on the auth service, just subscribe to it's messages and/or trust your IDP's tokens.
This article, in my interpretation, is about hard dependencies, not soft. Each of your services should have their own view of "the world". If they aren't able to auth/auth a request, it's rejected - as it should be, until they have the required information to accept the request (ie. broadcasted role information and/or an acceptable jwt).
There’s a million reasonable situations where this pattern could arise because of you want to encapsulate a domain behind a micro service.
Take the simplest case of a CRM system a service provides search/segmentation and CRUD on top of customer lists. I can think of a million ways other services could use that data.
The article doesn't make that claim. For example, the service n7 is used by multiple other nodes, namely n3 and n4. There is no cycle there, so it's okay.
but why is having multiple paths to a service wrong ? The article just claims "it does bad things", without explaining how it does bad things and why it would be bad in that context.
Treating N4 as a service is fair. I think the article was leaning more toward that idea of N4 being a database, which is a legit bad idea with microservices (if fact defeating the point entirely). My takeaway is that if you're going to have a service that many other services depend on, you can do it but you need to be highly away of that brittleness. Your N4 service needs to be bulletproof. Netflix ran into this exact issue with their distributed cache.
Youtube really wants to send me down the alt-right pipeline. I watch a few WW2 history videos and suddenly I must identify with "Mr Mustache" as the kids say. TikTok wants to radicalize me the other way, and shows me every video of a cop abusing their power that they can find. It cuts both ways.
I think what's killing Dems is that they don't understand the medium. Mamdani did really well by making good social media posts. Him and Trump had a grand old time at the whitehouse because they have a competent grasp on social media in common. Newsom has been trolling lately and his approval ratings are only going up.
Dems being a million years old is killing the dems.
> I think what's killing Dems is that they don't understand the medium.
Generally agree, but
> Him and Trump had a grand old time at the whitehouse
Yeah, but that wasn't entirely positively received, despite his earlier social media success. Him buddying up with Trump was a huuuuge turn off for me.
> Newsom has been trolling lately and his approval ratings are only going up.
Newsom's content is also a huge turn off for me, and I am not convinced that his supposed approval ratings are not simply more CTR type machinations from the DNC. Maybe there's some segment of the population that genuinely wants whatever the hell Newsom is pushing content-wise, I certainly don't have #s on my side. Mamdani's efforts - Trump buddying aside - were much better.
> Dems being a million years old is killing the dems.
Yes, but I think age is simply a proxy for a number of other highly correlated behaviors and positions. Most progressives can name a couple of >70yo dems for whom these complaints do not apply.
Mandani did really well in NYC which is entirely consistent with the social media helping the left in urban cores but hurting elsewhere.
I think it is structural about the medium because it elevates the profile of relatively rare things like crime or ‘wokeness gone amok’ that dems are losing on. Similarly, with regards to ICE, it is helping dems by also raising the profile of rare incidents. But on net I think this sort of coverage hurts dems more than it helps.
It isn't like the left was doing well in rural America before social media: people in the urban cores just didn't know what was going on there, and they didn't know what was going on the urban cores. But when I was growing up, people thought Bill Clinton was a communist in league with Castro.
Valve is not building all this Linux Compatibility out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it to avoid being shutdown by Microsoft, who effectively had a monopoly on the OS people used to play games.
It's a bit of miracle that Valve beat MS to the punch and built momentum behind Steam as the marketplace for games. They know this.
If gamers move to Linux and all the compatibility issues are solved, Valve is not going to pick a different passion project. Conversely, as long as Microsoft has a monopoly on OSes for gaming, Valve will support linux gaming.
Sure, none of that is untrue, but they could still engage in rent seeking behavior. They could start requiring subscription fees for stuff that previously didn't require it (like start capping download speeds unless you're part of "Steam+" or something), or blacklist any distro that isn't SteamOS, or make it difficult or impossible to install games from third-party stores (like GOG) on Steam Decks or their upcoming Steam Boxes.
I'm not saying that this still will happen, and it's fairly likely that it won't happen, but I just think we should be mindful for it. Twenty years ago, pretty much everyone in the tech world loved Google.
Before SSR (unless you were using PHP I guess) you had to ship a shell of a site with all the conditionals being decided only AFTER the browser has gotten all the HTML + JS pulled down. If you need to make any API calls, you've delayed rendering by hundreds of milliseconds or worse (round trip to your server)
With SSR, those round trips to the server could be down to single-digit milliseconds assuming your frontend server is in the same datacenter as your backend. Plus you send HTML that has actual content to be rendered right away.
A truly functional pageload can go from seconds to milliseconds, and you're transferring less data over the wire. Better all around at the expense of running a React Server instead of a static file host.
They are the same species, but it's a Brussel-sprouts vs Broccoli type situation where they started as the same plant but have been selectively bred for different purposes
The THCa/Delta8 stuff is not brussel-sprouts vs. broccoli. They difference is in timing around harvest and process. They're growing many of the exact same cultivars as what is sold in a proper dispensary (and indeed, much of what is sold in dispensaries would actually qualify because they actually have very low levels of Delta9 in them)
You can effectively just under-cure the exact same plant and get something that comes in under the limit.
reply