This is a really great: You don't mind when companies optimize for making money even if a company makes other people addicted to gambling or similiar things but then you don't want to help these people because its the peoples fault.
You know why you think like this? Because you are, by accident, on the side which benefits most of libertarianism.
You really think a human becomes homeless because of 'poor life choices'? No. They become homeless because they never got a chance, have neurological issues, bad parents, bad upbringing, whatever.
Its a lot easier to be a libertarian when you won the birth lottery... Man you are ignorant
The company doesn’t make individuals do anything. You have power over yourself, and trying to shift blame is the most naive idiocy present in human nature. You represent exactly that.
Also yes, a large enough majority of homeless people got so because of poor life choices that the minority that didn’t isn’t even worth bringing up.
You’re also entirely correct that some people are destined for more success than others due to predetermined factors. That’s absolutely fine.
"Facebook didn't MAKE you use its services, it just employed an army of psychologists and coders to make the app as addictive as possible, so get fucked for being weak-willed."
My assumption is that because you can easily do this through software when using UUID and probably a lot do it like this, the pressure of supporting it, is a lot lower than expected.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, automated content recognition and analysis and advertising will apply to anything on your screen no matter the input source
Ok but if the tv has no internet access what is the smart tv going to do with all these nice screenshots? First rule: never provide Internet access to your smart tv.
There was some talk lower in the thread about devices being able to form mesh-networks with other devices that do have internet connection (for ex. your neighbour) and share data that way, there hasn't been any links or sources to the claims yet however
I mean, I remember people saying similar things about Google scanning Wi-Fi SSIDs to track their location. There was a point in time where people were saying that was conspiracy theory thinking.
Sure, it's practical, that's why most people don't have a separate smart box. That's why I called it a curse, because most people are being nagged with ads and being tracked on a level the article talks about.
Smart boxes can communicate with the TV (HDMI-CEC), and you don't have to ever use the TV's remote. If the box turns on, it turns on the TV and switches the source. Same with turn off. If you cast a youtube video to the box, the TV also turns on, etc. So it works completely seamless (at least in my case).
Oh wait, I just remembered regular TV channels exist, I guess you will still need the TV's remote for that.
In comparision to a lot of other technologies, we actually have jumps in quality left and right, great demos, new things which are really helpful.
Its fun to watch the AI news because there is something relevant new happening.
I'm worried regarding the impact of AI but this is a billion times better than the last 10 years which was basically just cryptobros, nfts, blockchain shit which is basically just fraud.
Its not just some GenAI stuff, we talk about blind people getting better help through image analysis, we talk about alpha fold, LLMs being impressive as hell, the research currently happening.
And yes i also already see benefits in my job and in my startup.
Are you phishing for something or are you not sure how this actually works?
Everyone who is looking for proteins (vacines, medication) need to find the right proteins for different cases. For attaching to something (antibody design), for delivering something (like another protein) or for understanding a disease (why is this protein an issue?).
Are you asking what field of science or what industry is interested in predicting how proteins fold?
Biotechnology and medicine probably.
Pipeline from science to application sometimes takes decades, but I'm sure you can find news of some advancements enabled by finding out short, easy to synthesize proteins that fit particular receptor to block it or that process some simplified enzymes that still process some chemicals of interest more efficiently than natural ones. Finding them would be way harde without ability to predict how a sequence of amino-acids will fold.
You'd need to actually try to manufacture them then look at them closely.
First thing that came to my mind as a possible application is designing monoclonal antibodies. Here's some paper about something relating to alpha fold and antibodies:
Some people have morals and ethics and believe that its not okay to just do what facebook does without taking responsibility.
You build a platform which allows you to share fake news and pay to win shit to billions? You make sure the algorithm makes you as much money as possible?
You know who made sure facebook fixes this? Politics, not suckerburg.
And your moral ethical construct should not just benefit you and work for you but for all.
Plenty of companies are not ethical and not your friend. If you have family and actually care, you wouldn't worry that facebook teaches them garbage? fake news? etc.? Just for the sake of making money or being allowed to do what they want?
Im curious why you would even debate morals here if your main objection is to make 'as much money as possible'? Just accept that its not a moral goal to have.
Moral would be "Making as much money as possible without hurting anyone and benefiting the society"
I often advocate things not for me. I'm quite good in understanding the facebook algorithm and all of that shit. I advocate this for my friends, familiy and other fellow humans including you.
Paid and provided by "Pay to win games, targeting kids, not preventing fake news (covid, human harrassment etc.), probably someone died due to lack of taking ownership/responsibility, election fraud through not acting on it.
Yes i do like Llama but lets be honest who paid for it and for what.
Just because suckerburg gives us nice toys...
He could actually start giving his money away to humanity in a relevant and meaningful way to start fixing what he did to our society.
I don't think we need more billionaires giving their money away. I think they and their companies need to pay tax properly so we can vote on how it's spent.
> Paid and provided by "Pay to win games, targeting kids, not preventing fake news
Guess what? New iOS features and YouTube videos are paid-for and provided in the exact same way. Both Apple and Google are complicit in spreading misinformation, advertising to kids and profiting from lootbox/microtransaction revenue. But nobody consciously objects to Apple for partnering with Taboola, or Google for supporting extremism on YouTube. No sane critic lashes out at Tim Cook or Sundar Pichai demanding they donate their life savings to offset the obvious damages they've created.
I think Meta and moreover Facebook is a purely detestable platform. It's absolutely hilarious how unwilling this website is to apply the same criticism to their other favorite services. The cognitive dissonance is arresting.
That's true, but my stance frankly wouldn't change if they also thought Google and Apple needed to spend the rest of their existence as a charity case. My point is more that it's a silly measure of damages, since this behavior is table stakes in the FAANG echelons. It's like saying that we should reject Open Source contributions by Google and Amazon because they pay their engineers with money made off exploitative server deals. It's a reach.
I don't really understand your point. Company A is corrupt, the company B and C are corrupt too (and D, E, F,...). We have 3 corrupt companies. Why would here be any problem saying that company A is corrupt? Or from another perspective, why would be A less corrupt if B and C are doing the same thing?
Open Source contributions are there for three reasons. Either the license requires it (Google Fuchsia is a step into avoiding this and keep next generation hardware close source), it is a public relations stunt or they want other software developers work for them for free (which is also lowering the wages for their developers).
Never ever mistake any company that has public stocks doing anything else but earning money for the stock owners. As they didn't buy the stocks to support charity but to earn money, which is the greatest reason why their products are worse deal for their customers on y2y basis.
Apple is responsible for plenty of death in foxcon companies.
Google, is a lot different than Apple or Facebook. Google did a lot for our society through Android, Google maps, https, Gmail, Kubernetes and Search.
YouTube had a problem with fake news and especially the algorithm (flat earth etc.) but they actually acted on it a lot faster than facebook ever tried.
But yes pls don't assume something without knowing were my viewpoints are. There is no cognitive dissonance but we talk here about facebook and not about every other companie on the planet.
You know why you think like this? Because you are, by accident, on the side which benefits most of libertarianism.
You really think a human becomes homeless because of 'poor life choices'? No. They become homeless because they never got a chance, have neurological issues, bad parents, bad upbringing, whatever.
Its a lot easier to be a libertarian when you won the birth lottery... Man you are ignorant