noitpmeder

Did you even read the article or review the story? The police showed up, reviewed and even verified their documents (called the numbers on the form to confirm their authorization) and we're seemingly satisfied all was in order.

Only once the sheriff himself arrived on scene did he order the arrest that caused all the issues. If that didn't happen it wouldn't have been a story other than "security professionals doing their authorized job".

I could be wrong but seem to remember this being explicitly disallowed by Apples terms

Give it a shot and report back when you get them merged

So wouldn't the fact that settlements are pouring in literally prove other can do it too?

How about just letting the user choose, instead of foisting your own idea of 'right' on them.

If I was the US blessed feed, let me have it. If I wasn't the Chinese maintained one, why not.

Or, even better, let me make my own! Or use one from an open source that I, the user, trusts.

Hell, EXPOSE THE ALGORITHMS. The simple fact that we can't see the weights, or measure inputs to outputs, means we are in total control of whomever currently holds the reins, and they can literally play God behind the scenes if they have control over enough eyeballs.

Wouldn't it be awesome if that X post was satire? Wishful thinking ...

This case reads like a single individual suing these companies

What is to stop other individuals from filing the same suit and expecting similar outcomes?

This sounds like a net negative for the end user

Replicate this <slop>

Ok! Here's <more slop>

AI generating references seems like a hop away from absolute unverifiable trash.

I mean your methodology also sounds suspect. You're just going down a list until it sticks. You don't care where it ends up (I'm sure within reason) just as long as it is accepted and published somewhere (again, within reason).

I can tell you for a fact this exact behavior, aggressive manager included, exists at my company.

Thankfully they're in a different org/reporting line, but this exists in the real world.

Video is great, came up in my youtube recommendation cycle last week.

Honestly one of the better things youtube has pitched to me, the quality/relevance of the rest of its recommendations have been nose diving over the last year (or so it feels).

You're not verifying the observable behavior of your application? lmao

I think you're being overly pessimistic about the chance this exists in some form at nearly every mid-to-large size software company.

It doesn't take a company policy for an ai-enabled engineer to start absolutely spewing slop. But it's instantly felt by whatever process exists downstream.

I think there's still a significant quantity of engineers who value the output of AI, but at the same time put the effort in to avoid situations like what the author is describing. Reviewing code, writing/generating appropriate tests (and reviewing those too). The secret is those are the good ones. These are the ones you SHOULD promote, laud, and set as examples. The rest should be made examples of and be held accountable.

Id hope my usages of AI are along these lines. I'm sure I'm failing at some of the points, and always trying to improve.

I wish it were easier to have ephemeral interactions with companies. Why do I need a tracked and maintained user profile for things like Uber? Shouldnt it be possible to only interact for the single transaction, ending as soon as I leave the car.

I imagine trying to continuously cycle accounts will run into various blocks, e.g. you can't sign up using your email/phone/credit-card because it is already linked to an existing account.

I hate the way the world is going. As the article states, Uber can probably classify my exact spending habits to maximize a price I'm willing to pay for. But id much rather them have to treat me as a new soul every time, and hopefully along those lines have to fight a bit harder to get my business.

They're basically jackboots, I have to imagine almost entirely composed of the republican far right. Just imagine the echo chamber that exists within their ranks.

They literally just murdered someone in cold blood. Textbook execution without trial. And have some of the most powerful people in the world saying how brave they are and how great of a job they did executing their duty.

Their entire recruiting process has the effect of self selecting for the exact kind of person who is significantly more likely to shoot an unarmed nonviolent protestor.

If I recall correctly they even have notably higher salary and signing bonuses compared to similar agencies, which could be (decent pessimistically) interpreted as a way to hoover up more recruits with questionable moral bases. "Oh I really don't think ICE is doing the right thing, but oh boy sign me up for that cash baby".

I agree, but in this hypothetical situation the HR part needs to happen, despite the fact that most people don't want to be the squeaky wheel that explicitly starts pointing fingers..

It's way too easy to pretend the system is the problem while sticking your head in the sand because you don't want to solve the actual human problem.

Sure, use the post mortem to brainstorm how to prevent/detect/excise the systematic problem ("How do we make sure no one else can make the same mistake again"), but eventually you just need to deal with the repeat offender.

This current administration and their policies have definitely influenced my opinion on the 2018 debate around citizenship questions on the US census.

(For more context: https://www.tbf.org/blog/2018/march/understanding-the-census...)

I don't think the sentiment the poster you're interacting with is anything novel or surprising to find on HN. To be honest it's largely the prevailing outlook from what I understand (maybe with some more reserved language) ESPECIALLY for those not intimately connected with SV in America.

I'd definitely be having these thoughts a bit more often if I was someone in another country that found out my govt is using their services, even more so with the recent migrate-off-us-tech momentum.

OP meaning the author of the linked article? Maybe I missed the mark but I felt his main rejection of Gmail ended up being because they train their AI based on his private and or commercial data.

"please convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I have a very strongly held opinion that I consider to be an unshakeable fact, and by the way I'm asking you for evidence while providing none of my own. But it's a fact."

But google still is presumably still training their AIs on your email content regardless if you don't use their frontend.

Looks like this has been around for over a decade now. I'm surprised I haven't heard of it until now.

If, as advertised, it's significantly better than protobufs, why hasn't it gathered more steam/adoption? If presented correctly it sounds like a great alternative/replacement to things like JSON, proto, SBE messages, ... Especially in the realm of backwards/forwards compatibility.

Has anyone tried this out and ended up switching BACK to a more widely used alternative? If so, why?

You mean South Amerizuela

I mean their livelihood is predicated on it not being solved for a portion of the population

Any ideas how I can track support for this in firefox?

This is absolutely FUD.

Most engineers don't work at FAANG. Most _good_ engineers DONT work at FAANG. FAANG is still composed of almost all good engineers. Most software engineers are NOT _good_.

All of these things are simultaneously true.

Most of your junior engineering hires will never develop to FAANG levels, and as such are never in positions to seriously only hypercompete for those FAANG salaries. There vast majority of devs, even in the US, that are perfectly adequate (note, not great, adequate) to act as developers for non-FAANG companies for non-FAANG wages. This is the kind of developer universities are churning out at insane rates.

You could use that same statistic for literally every protest ever, doesn't mean they're not worth the causes

Citations on this?