So much engineering effort wasted with zero benefit to society.
Cynically, as time goes on, it feels more and more as though we exist to be maximally extracted from, rather than to enjoy any intended benefit (where the benefit is not a happy byproduct that exists only because it is massively subsidized by aforementioned extraction).
If it ever was. Most of these businesses are still owned by the same people--the Sam Altmans, the Brins and Pages, the Elon Musks, the Steve Huffmans--who started out with the "not in it for the money" and "do no evil" rhetoric, and now their actions show that all that was just a lie from the start.
By all means castigate Brin all you like but if you want to show he lied in this instance you have to show it was always a lie.
As an adult, I took no action to make that happen; was I a big fat liar?
BTW, I like this game: 'endlessly avoid making a point'. The winner is the person who gets the other one to end up questioning something that is required for a shared reality -- thus effectively admitting they might as well be arguing with themselves.
Can you explain how your question connects to the rest of thread? I can explain the thread if you don’t understand it, as you admit.
A falsehood isn’t even a lie if it is spoken when it is actually false unless the speaker knows it is false. Arguably less so when at the time the truth of the statement couldn’t actually be known. Later it was found/determined/decided that @sokoloff would not be an astronaut. So the statement was shown to be false. But that doesn’t retroactively cause the statement to be a lie.
Notably pointing out that such statements aren’t lies is not a defense of the subsequent behavior that caused the original statement to become a falsehood.
Your response was something of a non sequitur focusing instead on whether a doctor is “allowed” to do that, but whether a doctor is allowed to do that would have no bearing on whether he lied in the past. I got the sense that you were implying that this behavior was bad behavior but to use your example, no defense was made of the doctor breaking his oath.
My question used your example of the doctor to reframe @sokoloff’s original rhetorical question. Is a doctor who breaks his oath an oath breaker? Yes. Did he lie when he took the oath? Only if he always intended to break the oath. If you believe he didn’t intend to break the oath at the time he swore it, you have to conclude that he didn’t lie, even if breaking his oath is otherwise undesirable behavior.
And my point is that if we dissect the meaning of the language long enough we end up questioning our own existence.
This isn't on the order of splitting hairs when trying to define something nebulous like consciousness. There would be quite a difference between @sokoloff saying, "I am going to be an astronaut" as a child, and if he were to say "I am an astronaut" now.
What is the 'intended meaning'? The poster made a claim that is false. There is no ambiguity about what was said regardless of presumed intent. Any concerns about questioning our own existence seem extremely premature at best.
The parent comment was making a statement about dishonesty in the sense that when an adult makes a commitment, we hold them to that unless we do not trust them, and those were people we thought we could trust. They have gone back on that and now we think they are deceitful because they betrayed our trust. Whether or not they believed it at the time they said it still makes them scumbugs for having changed their mind at a later date.
Regardless, suppose you did lend that child money and they didn't pay you back. Then suppose as young adults, they come back to you and ask to borrow money again. If they always intended to pay you back and have now matured (and maybe even ultimately did pay you back years late), you'd be far more likely to lend them money again than if you found out somehow that he never intended to pay you back the first time.
There is meaningful difference between "This person committed to something and ultimately didn't live up to that commitment," (or only lived up to it for a certain amount of time, etc.) and "This person lied when they said they were committing to something because ultimately they failed." In one case they changed their mind and perhaps knowingly went back on their word or were unable to live up to their word due to forces outside their control. In the second case abuse of trust was the entire plan. Both of these say different things about the person who violated our trust and whether and with what we can trust them in the future.
Ugh. Such a naive and simplistic take. People change, for better and worse. And the figureheads that unaccountable nerds love to bash here are sometimes just that, figureheads.
I'd like another querty productivity phone as good as the BB curve 9320 or Q10 was, and willing to pay, but it probably won't happen.
'The market is the solution' is true only as long as human factors are seen as market distortions and mitigated through regulation.
Most things we do are in the end just burning energy to create, move and destroy things in the process. The guys who benefit from ads buy salad from shops employing people. It’s arguable that anything that increases economic cycles is of at least some benefit to society. That’s the advantage of capitalism.
I also don't believe for a single second, based on their past records, that Sony, or LG, or whoever, are actually properly anonymising this data
Our culture is already revolving around rehashing what's "proven". The most original and interesting ideas may come from those who oppose that trend, and these ideas are most likely to drown in the sea of slop.
Also the "content" "creators" who are most likely to benefit from tracking are the giant corporations - we're just making the rich richer.
Also somewhat related: https://rubenerd.com/stop-calling-people-content-creators/
That's actually the perfect description of why 'content creators' aren't called artists. They're not creative, they're regurgitative.
Society needs not faded, watered down, muted copies of originals. It needs more originals to inspire more creativity.
Originality is an art unto itself.
What you are right about, however, is the profit inherent in bland copies, which means there's a market out there consisting of dumb, easily satisfied cattle, to be milked by the lazily regurgitative bottom feeders that know only 'what's trending' and have said subscribe! more often than they've had hot meals. Those saviours of society.