JeffSnazz

> In the memo, Shah said employees should be prepared to work longer hours and not be afraid to let work impinge on their personal lives.

I wonder what executives should prepare for. Presumably continuing to contribute nothing of discernible value. Probably what comes when you treat humans like fungible work units to their face without even the pretense of viewing them as human.

Oh god they're russian. That means they're evil!

> States can make bad calls in the short term but you’ll often find they are rational decisions regardless of if they don’t turn out well.

This line of reasoning only makes sense when compared with counterfactuals, which seems like a waste of everyone's time. It's easy enough to justify an arbitrary action as rational if you have no basis of comparison.

Anyway, "rational self-interest of the state" is not the same thing as "rational". There are other ends other than self-interest of the state—for instance, self-interest of the constituents of the state, or self-interest of humanity. All states put their own existence before the welfare of their people. A state is not a natural thing outside the vying of capital to institute economic stability for the ends of its own empowerment.

> I made a statement considered factual by political science/international relations

This is typically termed a "belief".

Well, it's impossible to say without the opportunity to experiment. It's certainly difficult to believe nobody would take advantage of this if they could.

I have yet to see evidence of this lol

Many single-unit family home neighborhoods do not have an HOA—people just get along or take their concerns to the town itself. I mostly associate HOAs with suburbia.

Given that it also functioned as sort of an uncomfortable couch—not really.

Besides, it's way further behind in basically every respect but compute.

If you don't have an HOA, consider not leaf blowing or raking at all. There's not much point and local insect populations probably need them to weather winter.

This just straight up doesn't make sense to me—states aren't monolithic entities or rational actors. I think it's easier to say that the modern state exists at the behest of capital, at least in the west.

> I wonder if there's a way to prevent the growth at all costs that is demanded by the financial markets.

Growth and private investment are part and parcel.

Ads (along with nazis and pedophiles) are the root of almost all issues on the internet and it looks like a very bleak future if we can't build an alternative form of compensation into our protocols. I don't understand why we can't at least outbid the advertisers for our own attention.... what a waste of time and money and attention and culture all around.

> The whole field has been referred to as AI for decades

Yea, everyone else has been laughing at you for this the whole time. It's a dumb term for anything but encouraging rubes to fork over cash for stuff that looks like magic.

> Referring to the things used here as AI is entirely consistent with how I've seen the term used dating back beyond when people would ask me if AI was to do with aliens. Simpler things have been called AI in the public sphere too, so it's not a new thing being sprung on people.

Maybe you should consider communicating more directly and effectively.

> I don't think people have generally been confused by a camera that says it has AI thinking it's sentient.

You should talk to more people. This is 100% a problem.

> I'm not so keen on forcing successful businesses to ruin themselves

I don't really have a problem with that if they can't play nicely with others. Businesses come and go. But ultimately companies need some incentive to not fuck over the consumer, and "forcing successful businesses to ruin themselves" strikes me as a better option than fines at this point.

> There is a belief, entirely understandable, that more and more frequent symbols of our intent to retaliate will keep the North at bay

How's deterrence working on those other fronts, Uncle Sam? Have you tried diplomacy? Have you tried fixing your own country first?

> inside platforms

This just means private market. There's nothing special about the term "platform" that changes the feudal nature of this. The tenants compete but the operator has coerced exclusion on collecting its tax. This private market has a single operator offer access on non-negotiable terms against which no other entity is able to make a competing offer. If that's not a monopoly, it's certainly far worse to everyone but the owner of the market.

I chose to buy a device, it's mine. What on earth are you doing meddling with what i do with it, apple? Your taste in apps sucks ass and you charge the poor app developers 10x the value you provide. Being forced to use the appstore actively lowers the value of my phone.

I don't appreciate this attempt by large corps to just rewrite the meaning of ownership and markets without giving us any of the benefits of a world without property or a centralized marketplace. The people here who defend it disgust me.

How is this not straightforwardly a vertically owned market with full price controls to which we can only rent space at exorbitant cost and little return compared to an public market?

We all know the reason: it drives profits and our index funds. Nobody wants to kill the golden goose, even if that represents us all getting collectively sold up river. Which should remind you of about a thousand other problems this country faces.

Hate this useless state for real

TBH as an app developer myself I'd far prefer an option to publish and make transactions outside of Apple's purview than any kind of concern about piracy or meddling.

> No legal precedent supports the idea that the Android or iOS app stores are monopolies under US law.

I probably shouldn't have used the term. It's still a very negative sign about our future that's worth fighting.

> Or because those two companies created those platforms. I don't see why they owe it to other companies to lower their prices.

It's up to us to make them give us better tools for us. This isn't a natural thing that just happens. I don't give a damn which company succeeds in the end so long as the consumer is fairly represented.

> clear what a monopoly means in that case

Well, it's bad regardless of the concept of monopolies. Private markets are not a good sign.

> Apple does not have a monopoly in that market

Why do we act like there is a "mobile game market" when there are clearly two distinct major private markets, both monopolized by definition of private control over basic aspects like pricing and content, including mandating a private tax rate?

> What does seem new is people trying to argue that ML isn't AI.

Well, ML is a well-defined class of processes, calling it AI seems a little disingenuous. Is a beam search still considered AI? How about Markov chains? It's much easier to refer to the specific processes rather than vague floating signifiers if you want to communicate clearly, which I would argue is a primary responsibility of journalists. It doesn't bode well for reporting if journalists aren't zeroed in on this problem of de-jargonizing tech reporting in the first place, and this leaves them vulnerable to essentially marketing ploys that inherently misrepresent the capabilities of the software.

> The Bluesky app has very few features,

This doesn't really matter. It's replicated all of the features that matter, twitter has very few user-facing features that matter anyway. The only thing preventing Blu Sky from succeeding is user interest.

Is anyone denying this? You seem to be the only person introducing complications into the electrification of Calgary by having a weird polemic about EV cars you can't articulate.

> Generative AI can copy the style, if they's all you have as an artist, then it's barely art TBH.

How could you possibly expect this sort of worldview to reflect well upon you as a person?

This is a finance disease at the moment—I don't think it's particularly related to the US beyond finance's relation to the US.

TBF, I can't name more than a couple dozen sets of game software that I would consider "quality". That shit is generally developed on a deadline and it shows.

> Because one of the key objectives of the Windows Registry is to centralize the chaos induced by programmers being programmers.

The issue is the registry. Macs manage configuration without it just fine!

> You can access and modify the Registry using any of: Registry Editor, Powershell, and plain text files imported into or exported from Registry Editor.

Oof. Instant failure.

> Were you actually saying that you really did believe everyone else was worse at programming?

What? I'm surely just as vulnerable to giving a shit about the happy path as everyone else. I'm just saying this leads to bad software, and anywhere you see good software produced you see people giving inspection to the code paths they suspected were error-free. The conception that giving extra attention to the error path leads to better software seems to entirely confuse the concept of a flawed program with some kind of finite bulk work that needs to be done.

I mean, how often is quality software made? I agree with you, but I'd argue most software is compromised by shitty incentives. Humans mostly write buggy and incoherent software—this is solved by consensus across disparate incentives. The "primary goal" as you state is often characterized by others as "bias"