crayboff

Oof, the headline doesn't even really do it justice. The monthly broadcast fee increased between 12-40% for the examples the article provides.

Also, apparently it's not apart of the advertised pricing (if I'm reading the article correctly).

I've been able to find pride in a lot of places I've worked even if they aren't the most obvious.

When I worked in retail IT, I found I could help and comfort people through some of the scariest moments. Tech and data are some of the most personal things for many people. I felt like a therapist half the time.

Now, Im a software developer working at a bank writing code for handling fraud. Even though banks are usually seen as evil, the work I do actually is actually too try to make customers' lives just a little bit easier when they go through a potentially tough time.

I think many jobs are like this if you look at it from the right perspective

Probably, unless you could maybe prove that the private companies were acting as agents of the government.if that was the case then I guess it would be the government's responsibility.

I think I remember seeing on the internet that was a thing that could happen. And the internet never lies, of course.

I'm skeptical of this article as well, but I think what they are trying to say is that the government forced the social media companies' hands by influencing popular opinion which could cause backlash on the companies.

Right now I don't think that reaches the level of violating the first amendment, but I can understand that argument at least.

I think if we just completely brush away the conservative talking points, the people who consume it will just see us as dishonest and being unwilling to discuss what they think are issues.

I'm no lawyer, but the article seems to imply is that the government forced these private companies to comply with silencing critics with some sort of punishment. I imagine that probably would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

But I didn't see that explicitly stated that there was a punishment threatened. Instead it seems like the following happened:

- the government intel experts gave the tech companies presentations of disinformation techniques and campaigns

- the government identified some people privately they felt might be exhibiting extreme disinformation tactics

- after several months the government started making a big deal about disinformation in the public to try to influence popular opinion about disinfo on social media in general

- fear of popular opinion backlash is what drove these companies to deplatform some people

I'm not sure if that qualifies as violating someone's first amendment rights (which, remember, only protects against the government from punishing you, not private organizations silencing you).

Though please correct me if I'm missing something! I'm trying to understand this stuff better.

That's the opposite of my experience even to this day. As long as you follow question asking etiquette (do research before you ask, don't ask to ask, explain what you've tried so far, etc), people are usually good at answering questions when they can.

Technology specific IRCs are still great resources as well!

> My brain felt slower, so I couldn’t worry as much about the future. I couldn’t multi-task too well, so I just made my way through one thing at a time.

I found I could lean into this and be hyper efficient as well. If I mixed it with only a dash of anxiety I could get a lot of work done without getting distracted. I usually hit that stride between 1am - 4am and can get days worth of work done in that time. It almost feels like a super power sometimes.

I know nothing about this sort of stuff, but if this were applied to cars, would there be an increased risk of temporarily blinding other drivers on a sunny day?

I would understand your frustration if these were layoffs, but the article doesn't indicate that at all. They also aren't immediately being kicked out of their jobs, the work is just going to wind down over the next few months until January.

This article is telling us that Stadia employees were given a 3+ month heads up that their division would close in January. Instead of letting that news leak in a way that Google couldn't control, it decided to make a press release after informing their workers.

That's very humane in my book

> no doubt with government mandates coming

> Obviously this is a prelude to making meat a scarce product, cows being dangerous to the environment apparently, so people will be forced to eat artificial, human-designed, frankenfoods

I've seen this conspiracy mentioned before on the internet, can you give me a good source that led you to believe this?

I can't imagine any reasonable world where there would be any real political will for a government to mandate the replacement of meat.

I could imagine subsides similar to what the meat production industry already receives, but I can't imagine any mandates.

I could also imagine the occasional far left politician call for that some level of reduction in meat production, but I don't believe the US government would ever have the will to force people to eat meat alternatives

Is there an easy way (without having to research and install 3rd party software) for non techie users to be able to set their email client to Gmail, AOL, etc? I know a lot of people who prefer to use their email in the browser without using a desktop client. If you click on a mailto: link without your desktop client set up it will launch the setup process, it's not a great user experience.

Are there better alternatives than using "mailto"?

Who do you think has more power? A group of anonymous internet "trolls" attacking and harassing an individual or the individual who can't do anything to stop it?

Freedom of speech may protect against government consequences but it doesn't protect against social consequences.

They are forced to comply with legal warrants. They can try to fight some things, but if the warrant doesn't even mention everything (like abortion suspicions) then what do you expect?

Though I would say, they appear to be choosing to not use end to end encryption. I don't know if that's due to technical limitations or because they don't want to, but I imagine they could figure something out if they wanted to.

I can believe that this particular case wasn't Meta being nefarious and trying to get specific people in trouble over a possible abortion. But I don't think that was ever the real concern here.

The press release only enforces my concern about how easy it seems for governments to get private conversations between a mother and daughter. Also that apparently Facebook stores the conversations in plain (or easily decryptable) text.

I haven't seen much of what he says in general so I don't know if he has a really antagonistic trend in his he talks.

I interpreted what he said to mean "I have respect for devs who approach this for just the art, but if you don't consider monetization into your design from the beginning, you are self sabotaging your chance at business success".

He just said that with less politically correct talk, which is easily taken out of context.

Also there's this assumption in this thread and in HN in general that "monetization" always means bleeding people out of their money. Sure much of the industry does that, but I don't think that has to be the case

A portfolio is a great start, but how would a potential employer know you weren't lying/plagerizing/etc without some sort of technical test?

This isn't really a great example of the point, however. This wasn't a story about a large company that cut corners for the sake of speed and efficiency just because there was context could have justified it.

It's relatively rare on the internet, even in HN, that all of the nuance would be seen or understood before people jumped to conclusions.

Ironically it seems he may have only read the beginning of the article and skimmed past the rest.

Tell me if I'm missing something from the article, but it doesn't sound like he's being sidelined because he believes an AI model is sentient. He was put on paid leave because he gave internal documents to a senator's office.

> The company’s human resources department said he had violated Google’s confidentiality policy. The day before his suspension, Mr. Lemoine said, he handed over documents to a U.S. senator’s office, claiming they provided evidence that Google and its technology engaged in religious discrimination.

As for what he means by "religious discrimination":

> Mr. Lemoine, a military veteran who has described himself as a priest, an ex-convict and an A.I. researcher, told Google executives as senior as Kent Walker, the president of global affairs, that he believed LaMDA was a child of 7 or 8 years old. He wanted the company to seek the computer program’s consent before running experiments on it. His claims were founded on his religious beliefs, which he said the company’s human resources department discriminated against.

They scan all mail already, that's how it gets routed to each home. Informed delivery just has them email you those images they are already taking.

Also in case you were thinking it, they don't open the boxes/letters. It's just the front of it

Thanks for the clarification, I interpreted your original post as referring to the story and not the side note about Assange.

As much as I enjoy blaming the Trump administration, this story didn't actually name Trump/Holder/Pompeo. This all happened under Obama's admin with Comey

Your point still stands though regardless

If you're using that as an argument for why cheating should be allowed, you're missing the key part of what what education is supposed to be about: understanding the fundamentals well enough that you can think of of the box and find solutions without relying on someone to always be there.

Would you really want to work with a software developer who doesn't understand how functions, loops, etc work?

They're not just talking about prerequisite courses. If someone is willing to cheat in a Comp Sci course, they're probably willing to cheat on a Literature class.

That would be immediately seen as Facebook charging people to be unbanned. That would lead to people claiming FB bans accounts to make money.

Yeah, I hate to admit it, but unless something in the back of my head makes me suspicious of the information I'm reading, I probably won't go past the first couple results that confirm it.

I've been waffling between whether or not I think this is a good thing. I am curious on your thoughts:

A lot of malicious actors have learned how to game the search ranking algorithms by making carefully crafted lies that are easily spread as truths online quickly. They are able to get their fake news to spread (and this rank higher) in ways that legitimate sources can't.

Most people only ever look at the first page of results when searching for answers, and, let's be honest, take those answers for the truth.

If you were a search engine provider and knew that viral, fake stories were able to do that, wouldn't not taking action also be making a decision about what you can and can't see? Inaction, in this case, would be tacit approval.

Also you can still search for stories about how Russia is presenting the war, but you have to specifically look for it

I think the issue is the lower barrier of access. Every small step added to the process discourages the use: get driven to the store, walking to the counter, talking to the employee, physically pulling money out of your pocket, physically seeing how much money you have left.

All of those contribute to making it more difficult to buy cards.

Loot boxes, on the other hand, is much easier. Once you store your credit card info, all you have to do is press a button or two.

This is the general idea Nudge Theory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory#:~:text=Nudge%2....) when shaping behavior.