malvim

Probably from actually paying human beings for their work

Lots of countries around Brazil are taking pix. Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay.

And you can totally expand the idea. The fact that you need national id for pix doesn’t mean the idea “doesn’t scale.” It means the current implementation of it is not focused on use by visitors.

I really don’t understand what you’re getting at, it seems like a pretty narrow view of the possibilities.

Meanwhile US citizens are using paper (cash and cheques) for lots of transactions. Or one of the big credit card corporations.

Rioting is undemocratic…

Yeah, I guess we ARE hard-working sheep and get what we deserve…

Or that they're targeting the mass retail market, where people are technically ignorant, and "unlimited" is required to compete.

So… Marketing has taken over, just as parent comment said. Got it.

Postponed my ios update as much as I could. Things are now brighter, bigger, full of animations, and somehow worse to read and use.

Some buttons are so big and colorful and confusing that I feel like I’m using a child’s toy, or windows xp. This is horrible.

Guy sees a lot of problems stemming from wrong assumptions, bad management, bullshit jobs “needed” by the capitalist mode of production and profit motive, badly conducted wars, what have you.

Guy concludes the problem is “collaboration”, in general.

Yeah, no.

That is a fundamental distinction, yes. But the notion that exporting brings wealth to a country is… kinda not really the case anymore.

If that wealth is ending up in very few people’s hands, and if said people are wealthy enough that they keep their money offshore (which is the case a lot of the time), what is the big difference in making something you can export?

… including in the US

You… What?

How can you say that like it’s a real argument? You’re REALLY, in 2026, defending that the US is “bringing democracy” to other countries by force?

I… How?

Yes, such are capitalism’s incentives, I’m afraid.

But this could have been managed. FDR managed it, other governments somewhat managed it with policy in times of war, like WW2.

The US had the technology edge for DECADES. More industrialization would lead to more inovation and more jobs. They could invest in factories and the like, and even marketing, since “american made” has always been a fine talking point for companies. But it was cheaper in the short term to ship it to China and just not care about the future.

The governments didn’t care, the companies (owners, shareholders) certainly didn’t care, and as a result, decades later, they’re stuck with fascism. Which I don’t think they care about either.

Did big businesses in the West really think “investing” in China would lead to “freedom” and such? Isn’t that framing a bit naive?

They went to China because it was cheaper. They went there in detriment of their countrymen that went without jobs, in detriment of the environment (what with all the shipping boom that followed), even in detriment of their own countries, since this would stifle development and industrialization. And they KNEW that technology transfer would follow, because China had made it clear.

No one forced them to do it. They did it knowingly in the name of short and medium-term profit. I’m not even judging if that is bad (I do THINK it’s bad overall, but I’m not arguing it here). I’m just pointing out what happened.

So now the West must not be surprised. And they aren’t! They just need to craft narratives that will paint them in good light.

I don’t think they’re disgusted by Chomsky’s work because it’s wrong. They’re disgusted because of the recently surfaced ties with Epstein.

Not sure the approach holds.

* Surprised Pikachu face *

No one ever forced any company to work with China. They all went to China over decades because it was cheaper and made more profits, knowing full well there’d be technological transfer since it was always China’s goal and even explicit in contracts and agreements.

Being surprised now that profits became technology transfer and China is now a real competitor is useless. They knew it, just didn’t think the Chinese could be real players in tech, or didn’t care because short-term profit was more attractive.

So it was profits then, and if you’re asking “what sort of VC deals were they shackled by”, it’s profits now. So the point of the article still stands, Wall Street screwed them over.

They could also not invade a country that did nothing to attack them, but I guess that’s asking too much.

I’m sorry, which hostile nation?

Yes. The tanker plane with its turned off transponder off the coast is totally not a military operation.

This is how cable worked, no? And how streaming has been working. And it MIGHT be getting things cheaper, maybe? I guess?

But watching specific stuff you want is hell. The cognitive load of searching a bunch of services, or finding a site that tells you where to watch, then it’s not in that same service in your country, you might have to pay extra, or sign up for another streaming service or… Holy cow, it’s a terrible experience.

I’m not saying I have a better idea, or that it couldn’t be worse. But it’s terrible.

Hm, the State thoroughly coopting private enterprises to oppress their people… I wonder what’s the name of that…

Okay, sorry, I’m not from the US. I thought the constitution might have something along those lines. I’m clearly wrong.

No wanting to bash this new law, just wanted to understand what it’s supposed to effectively change.

I mean, isn’t there also law that says people have basic rights to food, housing, healthcare?

What will this law change, effectively?

I saw it and immediately thought Clippy. I’m pretty sure this is indeed going to be AI-related somehow.

The “right” response is owning your mistake, apologizing, rolling back AND talking face to face.

Patronizing “sorry you got your feelings hurt” responses are pretty much canned apologies.

Except it’s not a screw up, is it? I’m not saying it’s malicious, and I feel your caricature of “twirling mustaches” is useless and detracts from the point.

It’s not a “screw up”. It’s also not malicious per se. It’s insensitive and shows a lack of care for the community. They deliberately turned on a bot that would overwrite work done by people, and make these people work with diffs and proofreading, without them having a say in it. In production!

It’s not like they can’t test it. Or involve everyone. There are locale leaders, as the Italian person alluded to.

This is shitting on community, and then going “sorry not sorry”, because they’re not rolling it back and they’re saying “I’m sorry you got your feelings hurt, wanna talk”?

This CAN be sorted out. And I believe it will. But it WAS insensitive and it WAS a case of not caring for the people who put their time and effort in voluntary work that benefits you. It’s really bad, no matter the intentions.

“Basket case countries” who “can’t manage themselves” and immediately points fingers at global south countries and goes on to talk about everyone providing military stability…

I would love to be so confident as to write this kind of weird stuff with a straight face.

America? The one with all the spying, NSA, Patriot Act, this America?

You are dead wrong about Brazil, our legislation about online privacy is pretty advanced. The European Union is not a country but has pretty solid legislation as well. Other South American countries on the list are pretty good as well.

You seem to be making a blanket statement about “not the first country I think about when…” of places you know nothing about.

This drives me nuts. You move to another city, risk your livelihood on a new job that you don’t know if is gonna work out for you. Your kids go to a new school, your partner has to either move to find a new job, or make it work long distance for a while… Your whole life changes on what is essentially a bet, you have no security whatsoever. And people say the risk is not yours.

Also - and I think this is the main thing - you have NO SAY in any of it after you sign that contract. An owner DECIDES to close shop. To fire people. You risk being fired for whatever reason comes to the mind of your boss, manager, director, owner.

But yeah, no risk. No risk at all.

And what about all the developing and testing of models? What about all the OTHER companies that can’t wait to get a piece of this cake and are training and scraping the internet like there’s no tomorrow? And all the companies that are integrating LLMs into their daily workflows using tons of api calls daily?

Come on…

Something that caught my attention is how they started with Chinese design and engineering because that was where the knowledge was. They they learned and appropriated that knowledge to the point where this was not needed anymore.

I love this approach, as it’s not purely commercial, it’s focused on knowledge, and it’s not “stealing” tech, they probably have that on their contracts and the like.

Also, it’s EXACTLY what China set out to do a few decades ago, and foreign industrialists and capitalists were so eager to spend less, they flocked over there, and the Chinese now have the knowledge as well as the labor force do to what they do.

Some people love to cry about how China is “stealing” American tech, when in reality no one ever pointed a gun at a tech CEO’s head and said “you must move manufacturing to China.” They did it because it was profitable, and they knew the terms.

I’m not saying industrial espionage doesn’t happen in China, it does, as it does anywhere else. I just don’t like the rhetoric of saying they’re “bad” for doing a perfectly legal business tactic.