chrisrhoden

Will people start .gitignore-ing their src directories and only save prompts?

Also, the FCC does not directly set standards and instead responds to complaints from the communities in which the broadcast is available. So it’s conceivable that in an environment where nobody cared, you could do this at any time of day.

In this case it is a flag indicating to the reviewer etc that the app links to a website for account creation and management rather than doing it all within the app.

I know that you already know this, based on your other posts on this thread.

The technology referenced in the post above is, at least in part, to prevent you from reselling the ticket without involving TicketMaster. That may be justified as a way to prevent selling the same ticket more than once, but it’s certainly the case that this is one of many possible approaches, and it’s the one that most favors this business.

It would probably be criminal for the company to act any other way, so I’m not claiming any evil doing here.

> Aside: All of the above work on many operating systems and support API’s other than epoll, which is Linux specific. The Internet is mostly made of Linux, so epoll is the API that matters.

You mean by clicking a link on his website?

How likely is it that google would block joe rogan's website from search results for joe rogan?

I feel like people keep dodging a central issue here - joe rogan is not an independent being silenced on the open web by centralized platforms - he effectively sold the show to one of the platforms. They decide what happens with it (specifics of the terms of their agreement notwithstanding).

this isn't the first controversial audio programming on the internet, but it is the first one that is effectively owned by one of the listening platforms that actually has the power to do something without wading into unfathomably complicated waters, if they want to. that they (until today?) seemed not to want to - or to pretend that their relationship to the show is the same as twitter's relationship to me - is what is keeping this in the news.

To be 100% clear - it's not obvious to me what anyone should do in this case; joe, spotify, etc. I have my own opinions about the cost / benefit on the content but I also know enough to expect that things are probably more complicated than the popular narrative I have access to.

What I do know for sure is that Joe would have more control of his show's destiny, not less, if he had decided to keep distributing in a way that did not give a single entity complete control over whether a given piece of content could be distributed at all.

You're framing these scores as though they measure the same things in the same ways as IQ tests. IQ tests are basically bullshit among the adult population. It's pretty easy to say that most 1 year olds can walk, so if you have a 15 month old that can't, it's notable. Once flagged in this way, kids are screened more thoroughly.

This is the patent application, as far as I can tell. And as others have noted, this is obviously a political stunt—the article makes that clear as well.

Frustratingly, it doesn't seem like there's anything interesting or useful happening in the actual patent. It would not surprise me to find that they had been rejected in part because the idea seems to be either literally impossible to implement or basically uninteresting, depending on your interpretation.

Also, as a non-lawyer, this stunt requires talking out of both sides of one's mouth. They necessarily assert that they have the authority to speak on behalf of the machine listed as the inventor in order to assign ownership of the patent, so why not just assert oneself as the inventor?

You're agreeing with the article, and seem to be suggesting that your agreement represents a universal viewpoint, but it does not seem to.

Services, in this article, doesn't refer to things that can only be built as services (e.g. because it queries a proprietary dataset) but those that might optionally be built as services (e.g. fetching and processing otherwise accessible data) and could, as easily, be built as a library.

But what we did see happens is that shows which were likely to provoke a negative response from audiences or advertisers were never produced, in large part for the exact same reasons.

The specific shape of events may look different, but that's the result of democratization, allowing more people to be part of the game where they spend money, make stuff, and get ads run against it.

In the cases where YouTube does pay for stuff before it airs or offers a guarantee on future ads, I am fairly confident the old TV dynamics are at play - they will ensure that the content they are funding will garner viewers and not offend advertisers.

I am sure that you believe it's true, but advertisers have been used to being able to control what content they were put next to for a long time. I don't know whether it matters, or is valuable, but I do know that they have cared for long enough that it has been one of the largest influences on literally what television programs got made (even if this influence appears oblique, it has been one of the primary motivations of the folks making these decisions).

You can make an argument that the Internet allows things to work differently, but I think it was simply a matter of what was practical - once it became ~ practical to start exercising some control over what you're associating your brand with, of course folks would jump to pull that lever.

The industry-led-initiatives are all basically bad, for the obvious reasons. So many of them amount to telling ad networks whether or not the massive amount of data they have collected about you should be part of the consideration for what ads to show (for now) — many offer no possible way to opt out of recording and storing such data in the first place.

This is a situation where legislation is probably the only answer.

> For your smartphone to actually pay attention and record your conversation, there needs to be a trigger, such as when you say “hey Siri” or “okay Google.” In the absence of these triggers, any data you provide is only processed within your own phone. This might not seem a cause for alarm, but any third party applications you have on your phone—like Facebook for example—still have access to this “non-triggered” data. And whether or not they use this data is really up to them.

Every company vehemently denies this is possible.

Something I have learned from watching this saga is that those rules seem not to apply to "AAA" developers (this appears to have been fairly wide industry knowledge, but I was not aware of it).

It may also be a relatively new development, but because of how hot games are coming in, it sounds like Sony and MS are now willing to assume that day one patches will fix the issues if the studio says that they will. Not just for CDPR.

Everyone is piling on this, but this is _literally not_ the next-gen release. That's supposed to come as a patch that was slated for release next year - what has been released was explicitly framed as a PS4 / XboxOne release that ran on new consoles because of backward compatibility.

That strikes me as noteworthy.

I think what's shocking to people is that, traditionally, police have understood that they're somewhat more likely to be held accountable for abuses of power toward journalists. It seems likely that is primarily for the same reason that e.g. a tech company with a bad policy is more incentivized to fix it if it happens to stub the toe of anyone with an audience.

That police in many cases apparently knew that there would be no consequences if the press was _strongly_ encouraged to document frequent abuses is not a great sign.

The other parallel I think folks are drawing is that abuses of journalists in particular is a common feature of dictatorships. My sense is that this is not a particularly good parallel to draw in this case, but it's easy to see how one might connect the dots based on a passing review of the facts.