falcolas

23 ms·

301.
by falcolas 2y ago
Yup, that seems like a reasonable explanation to me too. Corporations are, as a stereotype, greedy (or their investors are), and they would not do something like this with no reason.
302.
by falcolas 2y ago
So, OpenAI - Microsoft - signed a contract to provide their service in exchange for exposure. Not a deal I'd take, but I'm not a corporation with billions of dollars in market value and the brand name when it comes to AI. Apple
303.
by falcolas 2y ago
Sadly, this is still a notable outcome. Especially given how other cases have been brought before the current Supreme Court by entities who didn't have standing (they were fighting the court cases based on hypothetical scenarios) obtai
304.
by falcolas 2y ago
And Mentos will cause Diet Coke to explode. Wait, wasn't there a XKCD about that, specifically about not making fun of people for not already knowing everything you do?
305.
by falcolas 2y ago
100 years ago the US had ~76m inhabitants - a fifth of what we have today - plus horses and buggies were used broadly throughout the country. The streets in our older cities weren't born from nothing but aether when cars were invented.
306.
by falcolas 2y ago
AI companies have historically not given two figs about licenses or copyright. The law's murky enough right now that they can claim it's outside of the protections offered by copyright, so a publisher's only real recourse is
307.
by falcolas 2y ago
I paid for YouTube premium for a long time (and vocally advocated for others to do the same here on HN). Google enshittified the subscription so badly... increasing the cost significantly while adding unrelated services (like Google Music
308.
by falcolas 2y ago
The only thing a theater really offers anymore is sharing the experience of a movie with other people. Which is definitely a benefit, but is it a $100 night out worth of benefit? Not to me.
309.
by falcolas 2y ago
It's fairly common in the US that people of public interest have fewer privacy protections than your average citizen (the public figure doctrine). I - and many others - believe that these public figures should be held accountable for t
310.
by falcolas 2y ago
> The specificity of the enforcement language, the First Amendment, how Trump’s attempts floundered, et cetera All of which can be argued for the app as well. Frankly, I'd want something a bit more specific. Especially since the gov
311.
by falcolas 2y ago
China won't care that they give up a few billion in a one time sale if it creates a rift between a majority (or huge minority) of regular users and the US government. They'd probably consider it a bargain. Additionally, they have
312.
by falcolas 2y ago
China announced years ago it would not support the divestment of China's interests in TikTok/Bytedance. So it's always been a de facto ban of TikTok hidden behind the justification that it's not a de jure ban.
313.
by falcolas 2y ago
> I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up? There are a lot of catchall clauses built into the bill wh
314.
by falcolas 2y ago
This study bugs me. They got 450 qualified participants, of which over 80% were scored as having ADHD (wildly out of proportion with society at large). And the test was only 6 “How often” style questions. And then it extrapolates advantages
315.
by falcolas 2y ago
For me, it's the support for ad-blockers that actually work, plus greasemonkey. But it's been awhile, and maybe I need to look again.
316.
by falcolas 2y ago
> imagine thinking you can learn how to program Java or C just from being handed the language specification Throw in the standard library documentation, and that's exactly how many of us learned how to program before projects like s
317.
by falcolas 2y ago
Resilient? Sure. Realistic for anyone with only $10k in assets? Not even remotely. Not in the market we have today. There are too many people who are using debt just to get their basic needs met, let alone something with enough permanence
318.
by falcolas 2y ago
I thought the "The more debt you have, the less financially resilient you are" was the more important message.
319.
by falcolas 2y ago
If you have face id and attention awareness enabled, the alarm will be silenced but still technically be going off if the phone thinks you looked at it. Not sure if it's related to this TFA bug, but it's aggravating, to put it nic
320.
by falcolas 2y ago
Respectfully, with as flippant as employers can be with employees lives, a "good" parenting situation can become a bad situation in a matter of months. And that doesn't even cover scenarios where someone can become an only pa
321.
by falcolas 2y ago
I personally agree. But I've also seen quite a few parents who use ipads as nannies, so it also wouldn't surprise me if it were accurate. I've come around to the screen-free childhood plan, but most people who I know that hav
322.
by falcolas 2y ago
> China is trying to infringe on American rights, such as using algorithms There is no constitutionally protected right for American citizens to not be subjected to propaganda. In fact, it's quite the opposite, since propaganda has
323.
by falcolas 2y ago
IMO, it matters why they're banning it. The reasons are a worry about "national security" as related to Chinese propaganda and manipulating opinions. Those two things are speech, which makes it a valid avenue of challenge. Wh
324.
by falcolas 2y ago
IIUC, and I may be wrong, but the Meta/Google/et.al. aren't under a trade embargo in China, they can't do business there because they were unwilling or unable to follow all of the laws required to do business there. Heck
325.
by falcolas 2y ago
While not written as a de jure ban, it is a de facto ban. China has said from the earliest ban attempts under Trump that they would not allow the divestment of Chinese interests. Legislators knew this - they knew that the divestment would
326.
by falcolas 2y ago
Spreading propaganda is a protected first amendment right. Just wanted to point that out.
327.
by falcolas 2y ago
Yes. How dare a company encourage people to contact their representatives, and ask them to represent them. So utterly discourteous to the congressmen and lobbyists.
328.
by falcolas 2y ago
China has already indicated it won't sell its 20% share, and so TikTok will be removed from the US app stores. And any replacement would be US only, limiting its reach to some 10% of what it had before. This is why most people view thi
329.
by falcolas 3y ago
True, but I don’t think it will matter. China is likely to take an ideological stance, just like the US is. It’s going to hurt the US more than China, especially with how close to the elections the ban will occur.
330.
by falcolas 3y ago
How will you eliminate the threat of Facebook then? China and Russia have been proven to be actively using that platform today.

More ›