Right, listen to that manosophere and you can commit some R or SA … Is that what you mean by “get laid”?

That’s what they’re banking on, but we know that eventually they will f*** it up and lose everyone.

The article is also full of bullshit and it gets basic history wrong. The agreement was never made, but to the extent it exists anyway, it was never supposed to be about a monopoly that’s destroying shit. Once upon a time, not even very long ago, there were competing search engines.

I know tech writers want to write stories that sound fancy, but if they don’t know the facts and the history then they need to find someone to proofread their work more carefully.

Well no, it’s not, because they have multiple monopolies. So we should blame them and blame government for not stopping them.

Obviously the situations are different. We all know that. The point is that it’s hypocritical of a company to say hey, let’s ask our employees to do more by throwing AI at them, and then getting pissed off when potential employees do the same thing.

Although I think it’s more funny than anything else. The company found out that people are gaming the system, which means they have a really shitty system, and rather than change how they interview people or what types of questions they ask, they’re just acting obstinate.

I think we’ve seen enough changes in social media platforms over the past few decades to say that your claim is true until it’s not. As payments to content creators fall, and as garbage postings increase, the actual value to the average user of the site is clearly decreasing. So we’ll see how long YouTube is relevant.

So you’re saying that other options do exist but some companies don’t want to use them because Microsoft is very popular, which is kind of a circular thing, and I understand, but it’s a sign of laziness, not quality.

I have to quibble with you, because you used the term “AI” instead of actually specifying what technology would make sense.

As we have seen in the last 2 years, people who speak in general terms on this topic are almost always selling us snake oil. If they had a specific model or computer program that they thought was going to be useful because it fit a specific need in a certain way, they would have said that, but they didn’t.

Gotta love American exceptionalism … and then when other countries copy the U.S., you kinda gotta facepalm.

One of the problems that the major news outlets have is that they repeat each other. It’s not merely an issue of AI compiling news stories, but that on top of the fact that all of these newspapers are doing hardly any research. For example, if you live in a town that’s not too large, there might only be one local paper, and they might send out reporters to local events. Obviously you would then go to that newspaper if you wanted to learn about local events, because they are adding explicit value.

But if you’re trying to read about national politics, a lot of the information is going to be the same in a lot of the newspapers. Which means nobody cares about the newspaper itself. And this is a creation of the newspaper’s own decision making over the past few decades.

How cool! This is one great point of FOSS.

Streets are paid through tax dollars. Often income, property, and sales tax. Not from car or gasoline tax. :-)

Exactly. Reverse DNS lookup matters in some situations.

That’s true but it doesn’t solve the problem now.

I think what you mean to say is that we should be pressuring public officials to try to bust up Google’s monopoly on many things. And we are doing that, and it is showing some progress. But there is much more work to be done.

YouTube took down the video because of its own policies, not because of copyright law. So we should be blaming YouTube.

I think it’s easy to see exactly why if you consider how YouTube treats small content creators. If I post a video and companies claim copyright on it, the video gets demonetized and I might lose my account. I can respond and contest the claim and maybe I can win but I still lost money in the meantime, and perhaps more significantly, the companies that made their copyright claims will never face a consequence for attempting to burn my channel. In other words, if I get things wrong a few times I’ll lose my channel and my income source, but if they get things wrong a million times, they face zero consequence.

And you might be inclined to blame the media companies. But again, this is YouTube doing what YouTube wants to do of its own volition, and not something that’s required by law. If YouTube valued small-scale content creators and end users, it would create different policies.

You should have learned in driver’s ed that the speed limit is the maximum possible speed you should ever go under ideal driving conditions. If there are children on the side of the road, anyone with half a brain knows that the speed limit is probably far too fast, and you should slow the hell down.

It’s all good to say that you’re following the law, but if you don’t use basic common sense, then it is your fault when you kill a small child. The driver isn’t going to be charged, but that doesn’t mean what they did is okay, and it’s really sad that you think it is.

I read the article. Did you? Did you notice what it didn’t say? We can quickly infer that the man is local and these were local streets. What kind of crazy mother f***** would drive 25 in a 25 when there’s kids right next to them? I know what kind of crazy mother f*****, the kind who wouldn’t care if they struck those kids and killed them. The rest of us would show common sense, we would see the kids, and we would slow down to 15 miles an hour because we know that little kids might step out into the street accidentally and care about the lives of children.

Let me put it simply. If you see a kid near the road, slow the f*** down, you aggressive m***********.

Except not really. It’s a small town and from the article it sounds like the driver is an old person who has lived there for many years. They know what time kids are around, they know where kids usually hang out, and if they have half a brain they’ll drive 15 mph in those areas.

My regular commute takes me near an elementary school, and every morning when I see those kids I drop my speed very low because you never know what they’re going to do. It’s your basic moral responsibility to keep the speed down because you know that small children don’t have the experience and common sense to keep themselves out of the street.

You can buy loyalty. Give someone a high paying 3-year contract and they’ll probably work to the end of it. But of course HR doesn’t want to hear that.