baobabKoodaa

Is fraud "more fraudulent" than non-fraud? Yes. Wtf man?

Off-ramp does exist. Stop lying.

One side says it was humor. The other side says it was not humor. Without more information we can't know if it was humor or not.

KRAZAM made a skit about this. You would like it.

Go take an algorithms 101 class. That's literally all it is: learning how to write different algorithms to do the same thing more efficiently.

> after standardization there's very little room to "develop the algorithms" because nonconformant implementations would be useless.

there is A LOT OF ROOM to develop the algorithms. it seems that you are confused about what an algorithm is, since you seemingly think that there can be only 1 algorithm that can decode a given media file.

> ffmpeg (codec specs)

if your mental model is that somebody writes codec specs and then fabrice bellard comes in and turns the specs into C, you are dead wrong. first of all, codecs are usually reverse-engineered, there is no spec. second of all, even when a well specified document describes the codec, that spec does not describe how to efficiently encode or decode with that codec. people like fabrice bellard develop the algorithms that do that.

A few years back these used to be called "Frankenstein models"

Fine. Thiel will just fund a Hulk Hogan lawsuit against the Swiss magazine, then.

Personally I do care if I get hacked or if my clients get hacked. If you don't care, you don't care, I guess. For you it's enough that the "paying customer experience" (???) is good, whatever that is. Okay buddy.

The purpose of gendering into female gender like this is to signal to other leftists that you are part of their tribe.

Awful, but true.

The main issue is that you deceptively communicated what happens at the end of the free trial. You decided to use the wording "disruption", which implies that workloads will be stopped, which is the opposite of what happened. This is deceptive and predatory. I will never use your software and after this happened I am AMAZED that anybody else (particularly OP, but also anybody who read this post) will continue to trust you with their workloads. The way I look at this is: if you're willing to do deceptive and predatory billing, why wouldn't you be also willing to sell access to intelligence agencies or some other "grey area" party who wants to do supply chain hacks?

OpenAI used to do billing like this too.

I don't agree with you wrt "the alternative". Things like scheduling a doctor's visit could be done without authentication. If some authentication is needed, it could be a traditional username/password setup (no MFA). Blocking part of the population from accessing basic services is just inhumane.

ToS are not laws and can not override laws. If you are in any civilized jurisdiction, such as EU, you can sue.

This is already reality in Finland. Want to schedule a doctor's appointment? Bank ID. Want to pay your taxes? Ban ID. Want to check your pension? Bank ID. The worst part of it is that a significant swathe of the population does not have access to bank ID, so they can't access these services anymore. It's a kafkaesque dystopia that is going places that I never thought would be possible.

So first they fire all the staff and then they "care and improve the products"? Who? Who does that? They fired the staff, so who improves the product?

The link that you gave does not show this 70% number anywhere? Also, the link is from 20 years ago. I don't believe the real number is anywhere near 70%. Maybe 10% or something.

Did you pull this 70% out of your ass or from some other place? It's quite obviously not reality.

There's a difference between "will go 10x in the next 10 years" vs "is 10x undervalued right now".

Lucky for you, the website answers these questions in the very few sentences of text that it contains, so you can just read those sentences if you actually want your questions answered.

Yes.

You start from a rock and build your own CPU.

You're implying compilers now utilize generative AI somehow? I doubt that very much.

Crime pays. But when you go that far, why stop at investing in scams? Surely you can make money faster by robbing old ladies at knifepoint?

(deleted)

Yes, Matt Levine said that, but he also argued the other side's point of view, as he regularly does.

I don't know if you accidentally replied to my comment or not, but my comment was a question. I asked what's the implication? You replied here with a long text that seems to continue implying that something nefarious is going on, without specifying what the implication is (which is what I asked).

What's the implication? Can someone provide context?