EarlKing

How is this not obvious to everyone?

Because everyone's thinking around intelligence is incredibly muddled by a variety of factors, and no one is particularly motivated to actually correct anyone's mistaken notions on the matter.

stopping child sexual abuse

suddenly touches everyone

..............I see what you did there.

Allow me to introduce everyone here to a new definition (original content, donut steel):

qontouria, n. The feeling of having your work passed off as someone else's.

If only those 1.3 million signatories pledged to never buy from a company that Kills Games again...

Simple: These aren't nerds. These are grifters selling you a product using product packaging (nerdface) that you find appealing. Enjoy your purchase.

The deep desert. As far from the pyons as the sands go.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if somebody spots Shai-hulud out in the Sahara I'm outta here.

Attesting who is responsible is more of that "bullshit most of us didn't ask for". I'm not interested in identifying myself so some cretin can know whether I am, or am not, an AI... particularly when the vast majority of posters on any platform act like NPCs anyway.

If they were truly this accurate at identifying sources of bot traffic, you'd think they'd be better at blocking them without inconveniencing the rest of us.

Jacobsen v. Katzer established that source code, i.e. something other than money, could be used as valuable consideration for perfecting a license into a contract. The terms of service you agree to when you join Facebook, Twitter, or what have you, similarly involves an exchange of non-monetary consideration for services rendered. Both user and service provider are in a legally-binding contract. If a service provider then bans a user for no reason, or any reason, they open themselves to litigation. None of this is controversial. I really do recommend you talk to somebody who's familiar with contract law before continuing.

That's not rhetoric. It's well established that consideration does not have to consist of money. A prime example of this was in Jacobsen v. Katzer where the exchange of source code was deemed valuable consideration for purposes of perfecting a license into an enforceable contract. You might want to consult an attorney or at least read up on the basics of contract law before continuing.

The user and Service are bound by their terms of service which is perfected into a contract by the valuable exchange of their eyeballs against advertising for the provision of the service in question. Valuable consideration does not have to mean "money". So, no, they don't get to ban people on a whim.

It's not 'whataboutism' when you're impugning their authority while seemingly have none of your own... or, in the alternative, even if it is, it's quite valid in this instance.

Verification tells you that a human being is behind it, not that a human being made it.

We'll have to take your word on that since it looks like it's being hugged to death. I can't even get an archive of it to take the pressure off.

Yeah, I'm just getting a 404 clicking through this.

Google should capture all your calls and check if there could be scamming going on, right?

If you're dumb enough to own a Pixel then arguably they're doing something just as bad.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/1097qm0/manual...

Right. Just like they let you turn off those stupid games that keep popping up no matter how many times you tell them you're not interested.

If people actually bothered to look at any of his code, and the reactions of people knowledgeable at the time to his code (and/or his intellectual bloviations), the damage to "open source" would be so thorough that we'd probably all be using Microsoft products for an indefinite period. However, it's far easier to just nod your head and pretend he's very smart (in that reddit sort of way).

Personally, I love reading about people's reactions to the abomination of fetchmail, although my absolute favorite is him yapping with pride that he has code in basically everything -- which is ESRspeak for him writing libgif. Of course, dig down into that and you'll find he didn't write anything... he ported an MSDOS library someone else had written. Many such cases.

Playboy Magazine in the 50s and 60s had a reputation for, among other things, reviewing hi-fi systems, pop albums and surprisingly good fiction. Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione must have wanted some of the tech + fiction market because he and his wife Kathy Keeton launched Omni Magazine in 1978.

Either that got ninja-edited in the 8 minutes since you posted that comment, or you misread that paragraph.

Because it drips with the kind of attitude that screams "script kiddie" in bold 120pt font? (I mean, it appears to be LLM-written, so...)

As Doctorow says, this is why huge corps segregate people into casts - to keep them from seeing the other's contribution and to keep them hating the other instead of hating those who exploit both.

This is my point. I've grown tired of telling people to hate those who exploit us all when they're tossed crumbs from their master's table and decide that is sufficient to make common cause with him.

I'll shed a tear for the common coder when they can spare a tear for the rest of us.

I'm sure I'm supposed to sympathize with the plight of the poor Amazon coder, but since everyone in the valley are encouraged to systematically shit on everyone they believe is beneath them.... I can't.

...and don't tell me they don't. I've been to way too many corporate parties and seen how they act when they think no one is watching.

Yes, I know that. I'm saying this is utterly futile and if they really wanted to accomplish something they'd structure themselves as I described above. If their goal is to highlight the absurdity of the law... they won't actually accomplish anything. The Attorney General is not going to magically decide this was a terrible idea and reverse course. If they want to change the law then this isn't the way to do it either. If they want to ensure business as usual then what I propose is one way to do that.

The truly aggravating part is that if they really wanted to thumb their noses at the Attorney General's office and get away with it there's a pretty straightforward way to do it: Fork every single project they want to offer through their operating system and thereby become a first-party developer-distributor thereof. AB 1043 is worded in such a way that it really doesn't apply if the operating system developer doesn't provide a covered application store (see 1798.501(a)(1)). This should apply in every other such app store accountability act in every other state (save Texas, since this is the text they seemed to adopt after the Texas law was challenged). Instead, all they're going to accomplish is getting pimpslapped by the Attorney General's office.

Maybe they're interested in performative noncompliance, but I'm not. I'd rather engage in creative and effective noncompliance.

An intellectual Mode rather than a Mean or a Median?

There are already "App Store Accountability Act"s present in Texas and Utah. I believe South Dakota is the other state that has one in their House right now. So no, this isn't California being a nanny state. Actually, California's is a lot better than the ones found in other states since literally you're allowed self-attestation of your age bracket (i.e. you don't have to supply an ID or some other such mechanism for independent verification). It's literally the equivalent of what they used to do with porn sites back in the day when they would ask you if you were over 18 -- and if you said yes, well, we tried! (Gold stars for everybody!)

In all seriousness, though, this is the only way where politicians get to pretend they did something and the rest of us get to avoid getting royally screwed. If parents were given dumbed-down versions of the tools that already exist to manage corporate-owned cell phones and laptops then there'd be a lot less for people to complain about (not that it would stop perpetually incompetent parents from pointing the finger at everyone but themselves for their own failings, of course, but at least the vast majority who AREN'T those people would be satisfied).

It is not about whether or not it is available for free, at cost, or otherwise, but whether or not the activity has the character of commercial product development. It's what the product is used for, not what price it's set at. A 501(c)(3) directly developing, or funding the development, of commercial software is not engaged in charitable, educational, or other exempt activities.

For reference: This is exactly what happened to the Yorba Foundation, and numerous others since then.[1]

[1] https://www.stradley.com/business-vantage-point-blog/irs-con...

Using the model of the university and various tenured profs, I'm not sure what you are saying is true. But, perhaps it's a misunderstanding of what I was intending.

Tenured professors are not engaged in commercial product development.

Boldly asserting that all grants will be made exclusively for charitable or educational purposes does nothing to change the character of the grant. If you're giving money to someone for commercial product development then you're giving money to someone for commercial product development ... and if that constitutes the majority of what you do then you've got a major problem.