8,578 karma · joined February 22, 2014
What makes you say that? It's well known that the addictive patterns in these apps trigger dopamine the same way drugs do. In a sense, dopamine is the "chemical substance" central to the addiction. Heroine and algorithms are just different ways to get it.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2021/10/addictive-pot...
This site used to have interesting technical discussions, but now its all either AI cheerleading, or vibe coder blog posts.
That's not how it reads because there is a semicolon in there. It means "This is AI, so I didn't read it".
Also, I'm getting nitpicky here, but LLMs don't ”read".
If you mean ban all crypto currencies, then you're correct.
But it's clearly bullshit.
I think this is a potentially giant market: incurious people who don't know what they're doing, lack experience and wisdom, and are highly susceptible to empty marketing fluff. Selling junk to these people can't be very difficult, especially if they rely on an LLM (funded by many of the same investors) to explain it to them.
But it has been a while since I've tried it, maybe I should look into it again
But for gaming, it really is hard to go back to 60.
Missing an /s?
Maybe you missed my edit? I specifically said not a clone of the monopolies, but a competitor big enough to be a sustainable business. The economics of a monopolist's empire are irrelevant.
> Social media with only millions of users is basically worthless because it won't capture enough of an average person's circle to be useful to them
There's so much wrong with this statement. First of all, I will never meet anywhere near a million people in my lifetime. A regular human being's real social connections won't be anywhere near that big.
But even if it is (or users want to discover/follow random people), it doesn't take a computer science genius to discover how to interoperate between social networking apps. Meta and Google would never do this, but that's because they're anti-competitive monopolists; if you're a startup trying to gain marketshare and win on your product's quality, interop with other networks is a no brainer. We probably don't even need regulation to require interop, as the market will see it as a useful thing to develop on its own.
(EDIT: to clarify, I don't mean to build an alternative monopoly, I mean to build alternatives that are big enough to survive as a business, and big enough to be useful; A few million users as opposed to the few billions Facebook and Youtube (allegedly) have)
The reason it's hard to imagine such a thing today is because the tech giants have illegally suppressed competition for so long. If Google or Meta were ordered to break up, and Facebook/Youtube forced to try and survive as standalone businesses, all the weaknesses in their products would manifest as actual market consequences, creating opportunity for competitors to win market share. Anybody with basic coding skills or money to invest would be tripping over themselves to build competing products which actually focus on the things people want or need, because consumers will be able to choose the ones they like.
This is peak finance brainrot. In no scenario is abandoning ship a positive signal, even if you managed to pocket some valuables on the way out.
Let's stop celebrating dysfunctional business models and consolidation of the industry around finance bros who give zero fucks about said industry.
If someone steals the entire machine, the drives will unlock themselves automatically. I don't think it's worth the risk to assume a hypothetical thief is too lazy to check if there's any valuable data on the disks. At the very least, they'll probably check for crypto wallets.
With something like Clevis and Tang, you can set it up so it only auto unlocks while connected to your home network, or do something more complex as needed
I think refusing to publish open source code right now is the safe bet. I know I won't be publishing anything new until this gets definitively resolved, and will only limit myself to contributing to a handful of existing open source projects.
> Hey Meta, is it safe to cross the street
> You are absolutely correct to check whether it's safe to cross before crossing! (emoji). Let me check for you(emoji)
> ...10% ...40% ...80% ...100% DONE. (made up progress bar)
> It is perfectly safe to cross right now! (emoji)
> Thanks Meta! (user dies)
Easy: pass laws requiring chat providers to implement interoperability standards so that users can bring their own trusted clients. You're still at risk if your recipient is using a compromised client, but that's a problem that you have the power to solve, and it's much easier to convince someone to switch a secure client if they don't have to worry about losing their contacts.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that there's an element of irrationality to it. Apple has a well known cult, but Microsoft might have one that's more subtle? Or maybe it's a reverse thing where they hate Linux for some equally irrational reasons? That one is harder to understand because Linux is just a kernel, not a corporation with a specific identity or spokesperson (except maybe Torvalds, but afaik he's well-regarded by everyone)
The site works on my Librewolf version 146.0-2 installed via Flatpak