zx8080

3 ms·

1.
by zx8080 6d ago
Regulations won't be set (serious ones, at least) unless there's some risk to those holding power. Which is the opposite in this case: this tracking helps them to take even more control over society and individuals.
2.
by zx8080 7d ago
> Google simply regrets android being open source. No, they are benefitting from it! They gained some trust and removed competition from the horizon. Now they are locking the platform down to do what their business is about: disp
3.
by zx8080 7d ago
> None of their decisions make any sense .. What? Google is advertisement business. Not a software house. They sell ads. It all makes sense to build a walled garden. They are effectively a monopoly for half of the personal devices _in th
4.
by zx8080 11d ago
> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you. What an idealistic nonsense. Companies do anything not for people, but for money. We are not living in a socialist uto
5.
by zx8080 11d ago
No. The oldschool is "daemon".
6.
by zx8080 12d ago
Is it a joke to consider openai as non-profit corporation?
7.
by zx8080 12d ago
XMPP. Run your own (federated) server, chat with anyone outside it, with e2e encryption.
8.
by zx8080 12d ago
Peasants have no rights and shall be slaves.
9.
by zx8080 18d ago
> Common Characteristics of Memory > - Zero access latency It's incorrect, and simply wrong.
10.
by zx8080 18d ago
The Church of Chief Executives.
11.
by zx8080 18d ago
> into ghettos No. Send to fight a war. To capture resources.
12.
by zx8080 18d ago
> you replace 6 warehouse workers making $80,000 a year with a fleet of robots and 1 technician earning $200,000 a year Why not paying the technician $80,000 a year?
13.
by zx8080 19d ago
This is most probably where it's going in less than a year. The recent campaign "Safer with Google" in Chrome hints to this.
14.
by zx8080 20d ago
Intention of the AI?
15.
by zx8080 20d ago
This sends 2 clear signals: - for developers: don't report, it's not worth it - for users: Google does not care about security as it doesn't pay for reporting (enough).
16.
by zx8080 20d ago
> He didn't need his pen and so wrote more freely (at the apeed of thought). Probably surprising for some, but it's possible (and pretty usual) to write at the speed of thought with a pen.
17.
by zx8080 22d ago
Don't live in the US.
18.
by zx8080 24d ago
The frog is boiling slowly. Google is breaking fdroid in less than a month left for sideloading: https://f-droid.org/en/2025/09/29/google-developer-registrat...
19.
by zx8080 25d ago
That's pure marketing. Not off-guard. Profit-maxxing.
20.
by zx8080 25d ago
Harvard, nice.
21.
by zx8080 25d ago
Gatekeeping internet and reading every byte unencrypted. Nice business monopoly.
22.
by zx8080 25d ago
> No single company should have such unilateral control over the internet and its information. Cloudflare with their "checking if the site connection is secure" (while being MITM) is another example.
23.
by zx8080 28d ago
It was a war tax. Not to just share it with people.
24.
by zx8080 29d ago
This could be a breaking change (for some corporate network environments).
25.
by zx8080 1mo ago
Anyone seriously trust in the fairytale that the rich and powerful gives 95% of their profit back to customers? It's not really what they've built their business empires for.
26.
by zx8080 1mo ago
Do they have human CEO currently? Just curious.
27.
by zx8080 1mo ago
> Why would Nvidia spend $13B for what seems to be a services that gives things away for free. To stop that! Literally. To stop those services being free.
28.
by zx8080 1mo ago
That's a great news for a few rich wallets and bad for all of us.
29.
by zx8080 1mo ago
Is this post text claude-generated? Very creepy to read around the solution section. It reads like the agent report.
30.
by zx8080 1mo ago
> Harvard has more founders Rich parents/families are the actual founders, via their children. Harvard is because mostly rich can study there (and drop out at will).

More ›