1,179 karma · joined May 25, 2017
Whenever this topic comes up you have some people arguing that it's not a big deal. Often these people admit to having these cards and carrying them around but still insist that they aren't valuable.
Yet this system has existed for decades across the country. If these cards weren't valuable people wouldn't bother to keep printing them and handing them out. It's clear that the people carrying these cards expect that it will help them get at least a little special treatment.
If you read about medieval warfare you'll see knights often used their swords on the weak and innocent at the behest of their lord. If you were a medieval blacksmith making swords during wartime, a good percent of them would end up being used for what we today would consider atrocities.
Not that there weren't ethical uses for swords too.
What does this mean? What's an example of an unfair wage?
I saw several mixed media pieces there (one was a diorama IIRC), which said some part of the artwork was done with Midjourney.
The issue is that the people we're talking about don't have the mental faculties to make these decisions. Do you think someone in the state they're in, barely even aware of where they are, unable to even speak or stand up straight, would be allowed to sign a legally binding contract? Of course not, any court would throw out any contract they signed because they're obviously not mentally able to make decisions like that. Same goes for decisions about their health.
I find it hard to believe human doctors miss malignant tumors in less than 1 out of every 10 million cases.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptEZQrKgHAg
Now from personal experience, it's not as easy as it seems in the video. It still takes a lot of tweaking and many iterations don't come out well, but hands are definitely not an insurmountable problem.
LOL, you realize all the PEOPLE you list as the PEOPLE who should be able to manage the keys to the kingdom are PEOPLE? Board of directors - fired on day one of Musk takeover, executive managers - many fired one day one by Musk as well, designated maintainers - for all we know they could have been fired in the purge or quit when Musk offered the 3 month severance.
All system require people to run.
This is fine for you perhaps, but I don't want to be a moderator. I prefer social networks like, say, Hacker News where moderation is handled for me.
>Email works this way today and most people are perfectly fine with that.
Most people only use email for work and don't particularly enjoy it. They prefer to spend their free time on other social networks.
I've been playing around with generating stories with ChatGPT for a while and...English (or any natural language) is really bad at being specific. I've made progress by learning some specific words to describe the type of scene I want and how much of it I want ChatGPT to generate (such as a scene for just that evening verses a few paragraphs describing weeks of traveling). I've also started getting some intuition for when I've given ChatGPT too much info (it'll cram all the facts in in weird ways) and too little info (it'll get really random and start inserting new characters and stuff).
Having a way to manage the meta aspects of story generation would be a big help.
I'll admit, we may even be better off as a society of communication was less "democratized." There certainly would have been a lot less covid and election misinformation out there if every rando wasn't able to have their uninformed ideas broadcasted by giant platforms.
The reason I think we should see it as our problem is because I think the solution companies arrive at is just to turn the internet into cable TV, where only approved media organizations are able to share content because of liability concerns.
Do you not recognize how lousy of a video sharing website this would be? Spammers are going to be constantly uploading marketing and other low-quality content with irrelevant keywords, while users that actually put work into making good quality videos will see their results pushed to the bottom quickly. How will you deal with that without implementing a system that can identify and recommend non-spam videos? Even the oldest versions of Youtube were boosting videos that got lots of likes.
>the closest match
How is deciding the "closest match" not considered a recommendation? They all have the user's keyword, what other criteria will you use?
Why would it be safe for them to use an older recommendation system? It doesn't solve the problem, if their older system recommends a terrorism video, even if it only did so because that video came up chronologically, they're still liable.
I would think they would need to just stop allowing the general public to upload videos anymore and only permit trusted media companies and influencers (ones known to not create controversial content) to do so. Probably after being approved through a vetting process where their lawyers can look through at least some of the content first.
You're assuming their goal is to "stop" every hacker, it's not. It's to secure this revenue stream for ag tech farm manufacturers, which they've done. They don't care if a handful of hackers fix a few tractors; if any get too big the boot comes down hard and they're ruined by fines and jail time. These changes are meant to block serious competition, by ensuring the vast majority of farmers will need to get their stuff repaired in official shops, which they still will.
>Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo could give a doctoral lecture on this
On what? How to make tons of money all over the world for decades? Those are some of the most powerful and successful companies in history.
Yes, I remember that left wing protest where people chanted "Jews will not replace us". Remind me, which president was it that said there were "good people" in that crowd?
So how do you propose forums deal with spam?
So wouldn't that mean the last thing they'd do is raise a fuss about what some random WaPo reporter, that Bezos has almost certainly never met, wrote which has probably not even gone viral? Just ignore it and give AWS the contracts...no?
No it wouldn't be because it doesn't way what percent of employees donate at all. I assume the percentage is pretty low because it's <$200,000 going to Democrats from the entire company.
All I'd add is look where it got this guy: still fired. And I bet he got less severance than the people who opted for the 3 months from that form Musk sent out weeks ago. I started my career in startups and I saw the same thing quite often. Passionate young engineers sinking their life into a project only to get the same, or an even worse deal than the people who did less work but were more politically savvy.
It's not cool to paint pressuring employees to work long hours as a good thing, and we need to be more vocal about this. It's great the author is fine wasting his weekend working on changes to a verification system that was launched for only a few days, but some of us have family and friends we like to spend time with. Hobbies and other things outside of work that give our lives meaning. Generations of workers fought hard for things like weekends and we shouldn't just glibly throw them away just because we're paid well.