jasonlfunk

Imagine a situation where a chat bot AI is trained on a bunch of copywritted novels. And then you ask it to start reciting portions of it. Should that be illegal? It doesn’t seem like it to me.

If I were to turn around and resell it, then you could sue me; but that wouldn’t be a chat bot’s fault.

Just like it’s not the clipboard’s responsibility to ensure I’m not violating licenses, I don’t think it’s copilot’s responsibility either. Use it at your own risk.

Why would they? This is the base M2.

Personally, I have found using a visual scoreboard as a really helpful tool to make/break habits. Being able to see streaks clearly and a more concrete representation of the habit (as well as a reminder to keep it up!) is really useful. And I think a paper version trumps an app here quite a bit. It's for more tactile, which makes it feel more real and meaningful.

It’s a pretty self serving protest. Just don’t watch it. You make your point without abandoning the moral high ground.

The text on the website:

"Уважаемые россияне, ваши СМИ подвергаются цензуре. Кремль лжет. Тысячи ваших солдат и украинских братьев гибнут на Украине. Узнайте правду в свободном Интернете и в приложении Telegram. Время свергнуть диктатора Путина!"

"Dear Russians, your media is being censored. The Kremlin is lying. Thousands of your soldiers and Ukrainian brothers are dying in Ukraine. Find out the truth on the free web and on the Telegram app. Time to overthrow dictator Putin!"

According to Google Translate anyways...

Shouldn't the title be "Neil Young is removing his music from Spotify..." or am I mis-reading the story?

My initial guess would be that the algorithm wants to boost engagement and people are more likely to engage with posts that make them angry. So if Tweeters tend to lean left, they would be more angry with (and therefore, engaged with) tweets from the right.

That's fair. I guess a better answer would be "Apple should not be trying to stop the exploitation of children by looking at user's data."

But what else could they meaningfully do?

If you say, 'Yes, apple should be doing something, but not this." I'd love to hear your ideas about how Apple can do more to stop CSAM while better protecting your privacy.

The majority of these discussions are starting in the wrong place, I think. Instead of asking whether this specific feature is good or bad, we should start by asking whether Apple should be doing anything to try to stop the sexual exploitation of children.

If the answer is "no, it's not Apple's job." then of course these plans are terrible.

If the answer is "yes, Apple should try to use it's immense power and wealth to try to stop a terrible evil" - then the obvious follow up question is "How?".

They could do whatever ever other company is doing and just looking at all of your data, but Apple didn't want to do that. So they came up with a system that they felt was a good compromise between privacy and trying to stop the spread of CSAM. If you want to quibble about the implementation details, that's fine. But if your position is that they shouldn't be looking at your data at all, then you have to go back to the first question and say "Apple should not be trying to stop the exploitation of children."

Now you might say, "Yes, but 'what about the children?' has been used to justify terrible things." Granted. But... "what about the children?" is a very important question to ask and shouldn't be used as a cliche to dismiss Apple's attempt to make the world a better place in this area.

You forgot the most important part! Google is doing to for their own profit while Apple is only trying to stop child exploitation.

Yeah, but they are already doing this for pointless things. They already use facial recognition on all the photos on your phone. That’s what I don’t understand. The only new thing is what they are looking for and their willingness to alert the authorities. The slippery slope argument that this will eventually be used by China to arrest journalists is scare tactics. We have zero evidence that Apple would allow such a thing to happen. And the only thing stopping them is Apple’s word. The fact that they are announcing this should actually give confidence that they aren’t doing it in the shadows for China. They didn’t have to say anything about this. The fact that they should give you confidence that they are respecting your rights, not evidence that they aren’t.

Considered, sure. But easily rejected. Let’s be grownups here.

I’m not sure what to think of the backlash here. I’m sure that people aren’t trying to minimize the evil of child pornography and exploitation. But anything that has the potential to stop or slow it should be fairly considered. People complaining that Apple is scanning your photos, they are already doing that. Where was this backlash when they released the memories feature? Why is scanning your photos for good pictures of your dog different that scanning your pictures for exploitive pictures of children? Is the problem that they could then share that information with the authorities?

But of course this feature could be abused. But Apple already has all the power it needs to be abusive. They can push whatever software they want to your devices. They can remotely lock and wipe all your data. They already have the power to do all of these things. This statement is simply an announcement that they will be using some of this power to try to stop one of the worst evils in our world. Until they prove that they will abuse this power, I suggest that we let them try.

If we pretend for a minute, which may not be hard, that Apple isn't trying to "think of the children" - this feature seems like a good step to protect themselves from the legal implications of having CP on their servers. I don't know what all the ramifications would be, but I imagine that if a CP ring was discovered using iCloud as a storage medium, Apple could get in a some big trouble.

This is really interesting. I think people find personal videos more engaging because they /know/ they aren't spam. If this technology becomes mainstream, I imagine that people will start to think about these types of videos in the same way.

I thought this might have been about Safari’s devtools. While they have been slowly getting better, it’s still painful to use them compared to Chrome’s.

Is it just me, or can this Reddit post not even be viewed with iOS Safari? I understand that Reddit wants me to download their app, but to prevent me from even seeing the post is a step too far.

One open source library was inspired by another but didn’t mention it. What a scandal.

I love this, thanks.

Are we really okay with the big tech companies having this much power? We just saw Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon collective destroy a competitor and censor a sitting President. Perhaps in these specific cases, they are justified. But these are actions that ought to be taken by governments, not businesses.

I thought all of these were interesting except number 3. The rest were common “misunderstandings” in popular culture. #3 seems more like internal physicist pedantry.

What annoys me is that when I do chose to login with A third party service and the app still makes me create an account and put it a password. They treat third parties as a fancy way to auto fill the email address field.

There has got to be a better word than Monopoly for companies like Google or YouTube. The barrier to enter the market is relatively low and there is almost no inherent lock-in to the platform. Everyone could stop using Google and YouTube today and switch to another platform. However, creators won’t because of the viewers and viewers won’t because of the creators.

People could stop using Google today but most don’t, because Google is just so much better than everyone else as searching.

Should Google/YouTube be regulated because people dislike what the company is doing, but just not enough to actually stop using their products.

Why is Facebook's policy communications manager tweeting?

I think it’s okay for Apple to remain vague here. The internet can be a weird and terrible place. By phrasing it like this, Apple can prevent all kinds of creative forms of harassment and discrimination. Instead of allowing bad actors to try to play the game of finding terrible loopholes to jump through.

And what do you suggest replaces it? Developers don’t offer subscriptions because they are greedy. They offer them because it’s the best way to have a sustainable software business.

"Apple is starting to tinker with their directory"

This is the first I'm hearing of it. What are have Apple been doing to their index?

> Sounds like you've never been in love.

Sounds like you've never been married. ;)

Of course I'm not talking about hormonal attraction/desire. But that's the whole point. If you base a marriage on hormones, it's going to be very starting when you wake up one day and the hormones are gone. What happens then? You break up and move on to the next temporary hormonal ride? Or you realize that hormones come and go, and the only thing that you can you truly promise is a commitment. True love, a love that lasts, the only love that really matters, is a choice.

And even if your marry the “right” person, no one stays the same. In a few years, you’ll both be different. Marriage and Time changes all things.

This is why the foundation of marriage is a commitment. Love is a choice, not a feeling.