ronsor

24 ms·

721.
by ronsor 1y ago
>what if we simulated actual store UI such as Amazon A phone call from Amazon lawyers.
722.
by ronsor 1y ago
Well, it's your property until you decide to share it with someone else.
723.
by ronsor 1y ago
I usually think it's best to have both n and n - 1 versions for a limited time. As long as you always commit to removing the n - 1 version at a specified point in time, you don't get trapped in backward compatibility hell.
724.
by ronsor 1y ago
You can ask this question about almost every non-software company. Hell, you can ask this question about most software companies. The real question is "why are most people and companies incapable of using cryptography properly?";
725.
by ronsor 1y ago
And now they're going to be unencrypted again, but not by choice!
726.
by ronsor 1y ago
I hate copyright too, but this is about patents. Software patents are also cancer.
727.
by ronsor 1y ago
Well, I did ask for this. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.
728.
by ronsor 1y ago
If they somehow did that to a US company, I think that would immediately invite the scrutiny of the US government.
729.
by ronsor 1y ago
The fact that these models have so many people irritated like there's sand in their pants is enough proof that they're pushing boundaries and making some uncomfortable.
730.
by ronsor 1y ago
Perplexity uses third-party models. They aren't a frontier AI lab like OpenAI, Anthropic, or DeepSeek.
731.
by ronsor 1y ago
I would expect your main problem to be SSL/TLS. As far as I know, even modern web servers have no problem serving content to HTTP/1.0 clients.
732.
by ronsor 1y ago
> Seems like someone with ADHD. Perhaps it does, but it begs the question of "how did they operate the computer at all?" These same people seem to have no trouble accomplishing other tasks they want to do on the computer--tasks
733.
by ronsor 1y ago
I mean, this isn't consistent with the usual definition of public, especially on sites that let you share content: * YouTube uses "public" for viewable by everyone and discoverable; for something that should only be accessibl
734.
by ronsor 1y ago
The vast majority of users have had no problem. The installer consists of a "Yes (to accepting the license agreement)", waiting on a progress bar, and a "Yes (to starting the program)." It is like almost every installati
735.
by ronsor 1y ago
I agree with catering to your target audience in theory; however, at that scale, you're going to have people screw up anyway, no matter how many explanations, warnings, or prompts you add. I've shipped software which could be inst
736.
by ronsor 1y ago
This is somewhat true, but we can't redefine every phrase from first principles whenever we use it. Web search has been a thing for decades now. People will simply have to learn things; we can't cater to an indefinite amount of
737.
by ronsor 1y ago
The number one rule of software is that no matter how clear you make something, users will still screw up and blame you. Then other similarly ignorant people will agree with them.
738.
by ronsor 1y ago
In finance, every other person is a VP.
739.
by ronsor 1y ago
People always say "this wouldn't hold up in court" and "the law doesn't work like that" when it comes to contract, but in reality, contracts can mostly contain whatever you want. I see no reason why Anthropic c
740.
by ronsor 1y ago
1. Direct, obvious harm beyond "my feelings were upset." 2. Actually, this isn't illegal in a lot of places. 3. Direct, obvious harm beyond "my feelings were upset."
741.
by ronsor 1y ago
You are going to show your ID to at least one foreign company with dubious data collection history, because the government will eventually force it on you.
742.
by ronsor 1y ago
Australia was a prison colony, after all.
743.
by ronsor 1y ago
The actual violation would be a privacy violation
744.
by ronsor 1y ago
> Wouldn’t it make more sense for a service to exist, like some kind of enforcement service provided by the government, where others can report safety concerns and that service goes and does something about it legally? I think this is ca
745.
by ronsor 1y ago
To be fair to the FinTech companies and their leadership, banking and finance laws are so draconian to the point where you'd rather store (and risk leaking) sensitive data than face even bigger fines from the government overlords. If y
746.
by ronsor 1y ago
The fact that UK politicians cannot use their brains is a separate issue. May I interest you in a VPN?
747.
by ronsor 1y ago
This is a horrible idea, but it's probably profitable, so it will be done.
748.
by ronsor 1y ago
Starling is just the product name. It's still IPoAC under the hood.
749.
by ronsor 1y ago
This strawman is so terrible it's hard to figure out where to start. > we stole all the documents stored on Google's private servers and all their proprietary code, research, and everything they've built This would mostly
750.
by ronsor 1y ago
People will readily sink the boat the AI companies are on without realizing they're on the same boat too. If copyright were significantly shorter, then I could see the case for adding more restrictions.

More ›