ozymandias12

OTA updates would require not only 5y simulation testing (dine in 5 days w the right computing power) but would also not be applied all at the same time, in order to get flaws in time before full fleet deployment.

>will not create a Citizen Network for authenticated social sharing

What do you mean? Care to elaborate on the network (I think I know what you mean about authenticated, but I need to be sure where for).

They had to speed things up, not only Sergey Brin is back at Google's headquarters, other SV companies are going deep into the identity realm, that directly clashes with Alphabet identity exploitation, same for Meta, these companies largely payed to win the "digital identity dilemma" but things will change pretty fast over the next 2 years. Sam Altman WorldCoin and Musk's X platform should be the telltale but people are missing the clues?

AFAIK the US bigtech dictates a lot of the tech movement narratives and America is already a P2W society if you think about it from a game industry perspective, so this isn't exactly a surprise, what comes next should be a surprise, like, either AI outpaces US capability to dictate digital narratives in the western countries and states manage to get into their own digital narratives or the America vs China technology/economic warfare winners will. Would love to have a 3rd alternative but all other assumptions sound stale to me at this point.

An update to the internet might as well be the most effective way to properly deal with AI, why not.

>Are they going to enforce it for products/services sold overseas?

Like, are you a troll or you just don't know how laws work?

>I'm not so sure, not until I see watermarks in Tiktok's content.

Tiktok literally exports all videos with watermarks, its the people that remove them to post on reddit lmao how clueless are you

Allow me to elaborate a bit more: by implementing the firewall, China not only isolated itself, it enabled the western internet to concentrate western investment on Silicon Valley firms, that with no big Chinese companies around, established today’s western world internet monopolies. Or in plain English, by closing itself, China literally helped US companies dominate the www.

China on the other hand, not only had their domestic market entirely for their own domestic giants, creating their own expertise and talent pool, they also didn’t even had to think on what to do, as they could just copy US apps “with Chinese characteristics”, making A LOT of money too.

There was a lot of talk about technology transfer, but you right, the narrative 100% changed from helping the CCP to “China bad”, but how bad they really are when they allowed America to make a true empire on the www without the Chinese companies as competitors?

How America is reacting to its very first Chinese competitor says a lot about America true sportsmanship on the market, it’s very childish and lame if you ask me.

Bro this is residual investment for these banks, wake up.

This money is NADA, is part of a fund every bank saves for things like this, they are literally just burning cash with this movement because 30 billion alone isn't enough to cover for any of them, even them "small" ones like First Republic.

This is a political movement, in a time where these banks should be investing said "actual" money (another misnomer) in literally unfucking federal government gridlocks on systemic reforms.

Banks make hundreds of billions every year, for them to take 2.5 or 1b to fund whatever is literally part of the business, not even computed as loss since it can be classified as net cost avoidance if this money actually ends up helping systemic chaos because these things are way pricier than 30bn.

LOL, your analysis is literally made for children books, I'm not even scratching the surface here.

>If you ever worked in telecom, you know for the fact that the SIM companies have sabotaged and vetoed every attempt to get a sane eSIM or SIM-free standard.

Care to link me to any credible/juicy article where I can actually read on this?

It makes a lot of sense for one gov to not want their BYOD policies affected by foreign (read adversary) countries. Cool.

It doesn't make sense to cut TikTok from US civilian devices because: Land of the free, free speech etc etc etc.

The other guy you replied to is correct, CIA/NSA et all don't like they can't swing their ducks into Bytedance servers and doctorate the content without exposing intelligence agencies MO to the Chinese.

Every American should be fighting against such bill because when domestic cronies own all domestic media, you guys are in a virtual China. Media plurality is the beacon of a healthy democracy, so suck it up Rubio

3 days and it’s algorithm can figure out what you like, unstoppable after that, it just freaking knows you, brilliant app.

.

Looks pretty fair to me. Kinda jealous actually.

Thanks for this. I also noticed the bottom thanks on the index:

>In_memoriam Shamnad Basheer ; Aaron Swartz

Please do share some more 3

What’s the story Apple/Samsung etc tell for GPS to be this leaky? Shouldn’t the GPS be solely handled by the OS?

The ones that did are rich nowadays, MURICA

But have they stopped terror and corruption? Does the benefit outweigh the costs?

NSO gets the mic because its the biggest commercial name, there are several other companies that fly under the radar with similar technologies.

I like what some other user proposed here: military grade classification. Tada. Now sanctions apply to both sellers and users of this crap.

Nice catch! How do you even

Awesome movie, tysm, really eye opener.

What other FOSS like Keycloak we have available in 2021? Looking to update my knowledge on options

Not to say Huawei only has 1/3 of all 5G patents.

Actually you can opt out nowadays. For Samsung smart tvs:

Menu > Smart Hub > Terms and Conditions

Inside there will be several terms of these tracking companies. Go inside each and all of them and check the box:

    I don't agree with these terms

There. No consent for track.

Have not tested network wise if the tracking persists, but in theory, removing consent should mean they can't collect it.

What folks like Cowen advocate imho is that there are huge benefits. That's it.

But are you prepared to have just one online vendor for everything (Amazon), or have just two major phone OSs (Android iOS) forever, or just one search engine? Just one streaming service grouping netflix, disney et al (that will eventually arise and be the cable 2.0)

The fashion industry is fragmented, hugely fragmented, and I don't see people claiming everyone should wear just Adidas or Nike.

What big corps are creating is just this plutocrat monopsony where about 100-200 families control the planet finances. So here's where I and my love for the big corp tend to go sour.

But when you say:

>many company's goals are not aligned with the interests of society at large or the state. The thing to do is to regulate them, provide incentives and rules to fix their problems even if it comes at the cost of competition

You go back to where we are now.

The solution for the big corps isn't to regulate them, is to regulate their commodities.

People need to be able to create. That's what we do as humans. Big corps are blocking us here. Big automation is coming, so what then?

Wanna keep Nestle accountable for bottling our water? Regulate access to it.

Wanna curb Facebook data monopoly? Make them erase all their data and start over, now any company can make a new Facebook.

Wanna curb big pharma? Stop acting like fools with the patent trolling.

We have all means in the world to promote healthy economics, everyone is just too busy getting richer while enabling big corps to promote their entry deterrence as business as usual. No.

The article writer is a known "truther" of the field. But I like his view, I believe we need opinions from his end of the spectrum, but I've also read a few times comments such as this:

>"Academia: Where Crazy People Can't Get Fired - Dr. Moskowitz disgraces the University of California-Berkeley in precisely the same way Dr. Oz and Mark Bittman disgrace Columbia University: They are charlatans who wrap themselves in the prestige of academia to peddle foolishness to anxious parents."

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/28/uc-berkeley-psychologis...

To be honest, I'm somewhat surprised (in a good way!!) that Moskowitz got published on Scientific American at all.

Anyway, I have my fair share of worries on large density mmwave equipment environments, mostly focused on other things, as in, not on its effects on us, but on microbial life, bacterial life, not the focus of this article, so I won't derail, but at least for me, Moskowitz isn't this zero sum game as he may be to some field agents.

The article writer is a known "truther" of the field. But I like his view, I believe we need opinions from his end of the spectrum, but I've also read a few times comments such as this:

>"Academia: Where Crazy People Can't Get Fired - Dr. Moskowitz disgraces the University of California-Berkeley in precisely the same way Dr. Oz and Mark Bittman disgrace Columbia University: They are charlatans who wrap themselves in the prestige of academia to peddle foolishness to anxious parents."

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/28/uc-berkeley-psychologis...

To be honest, I'm somewhat surprised (in a good way!!) that Moskowitz got published on Scientific American at all.

Anyway, I have my fair share of worries on large density mmwave equipment environments, mostly focused on other things, as in, not on its effects on us, but on microbial life, bacterial life, not the focus of this article, so I won't derail, but at least for me, Moskowitz isn't this zero sum game as he may be to some field agents.

Not an mmwave radar guy as well, but afaik, this little chip is quite capable of counting how many people are IN a room, if they're standing or laying down, etc, but of course, without the granular control of its factory NUI [natural user interface] proximity calibration.

And here I'm not even considering if this solid state radar chip cross reference its data with Wifi radio signals or the dot projector, boosting its ML recognition capabilities to be able to "blob" (and possibly identify) moving things as far as 50m.

I was under the impression that before AWS, Amazon did SOA'd almost the entirety of its departments, as in OP mail, every dept had to enable web services to other depts, creating an environment where

Between 2000/2003 Amazon started to learn how to properly make something that resembled AWS (launched in 2006), it was a necessity targeted towards scalability. What Yegge letter meant is that Amazon was doing SOA to all its depts, making these be useful both internally and externally

>"5) All service interfaces, without exception, must be designed from the ground up to be externalizable. That is to say, the team must plan and design to be able to expose the interface to developers in the outside world."

So you see, it wasn't to enable AWS as the digital service as we know it, it was to build a scalable company that could use everything it had both to serve its needs, and also to sell it as a product (then, all services we all know EC2 etc). Bezos applied SOA as a company, not only to its digital philosophy. And this corporate move, with no precedent, enabled not only AWS, but the whole Amazon as it is today.

>The distinction is in selling access versus selling goods.

That's the core issue.

We shouldn't let firms dictate ownership. Buying stuff is historically a right to property. The whole discussion is pointless because digital firms are using the regulatory capture, its slow reaction and legal loopholes to dictate ownership, all while doing PPP with the gov and lobbying for its causes.

This whole thing is a temporary theater show (while we discuss the issue, the firms are making money and donating it). People should DEMAND regulatory instruments to react quicker and respect our rights.