zztop44

Yes, defamation. Many such cases are dismissed; this one was not and resulted in large punitive damages being awarded.

Less relevant to this case, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress can also both be against the law in the United States.

That hugely depends on the circumstances.

Most people who have this opinion going in tend to change it when the learn the particulars of the case. Jones absolutely knew he was lying, he did it deliberately, the lies caused incredible real world harm, he knew they were causing harm and he kept doing it because that’s his business model and that’s how he gets rich.

It’s sad that people think this way. As a young child growing up in the 90s in a rural part of a small country, being able to access the “speech” of people around the world via internet forums was a revelation.

Are you really so scared of China that you’d throw that all away?

Isn’t every government putting out a policy paper making AI a focus area? Why is it suddenly nefarious when China does it?

What about the algorithm changing over time to favor longer posts and content creators on the platform adapting to the change? I suspect you’d see the same pattern with the average length of popular non-music YouTube videos over time.

I don’t want to download a random executable from some unknown source. However, I trust the browser sandbox.

But what’s stopping you just using the web page (in a browser that it works with)? Yes, they want you to use the app, but you can still do what you want.

This seems like a much better reason to be suspicious of Opera.

I’m curious, what’s the rationale for this? Is it corporate espionage? Or do you live in China/have family there and engage in online activity that might cause problems?

Is this sarcasm? Globo has never missed an opportunity to be virulently anti-PT.

Yes and that was either because the Clinton administration decided that shrinking the money supply was the right macroeconomic policy, or that they decided that a Democrat president delivering a budget surplus was good politics. At the time both were plausible.

Only because policy makers choose to do so. They could just as easily create the money the pay off the debt out of thin air. But doing so wouldn’t make sense. Governments will never pay off the debt because doing so would not be good macroeconomic policy. The debt doesn’t exist to be paid off.

Governments don’t handle national accounts in the same way households manage their budgets. Don’t think about them the same way.

No, but it might be able to organize a fleet of humans to stock a grocery store shelf.

Physical embodied (generally low-skill, low-wage) work like cleaning and carrying things is likely to be some of the last work to be automated, because humans are likely to be cheaper than generally capable robots for a while.

By that standard, nothing is stable. New features are added to HTML, the Linux kernel, x86, PHP, etc all the time. In fact, building on top of higher level abstractions can sometime insulate your application from this change too.

Agreed. I recently moved a production app from Zod to Valibot for exactly this reason. I still slightly prefer Zod’s syntax but the performance issues were absolutely killing us.

“Learnings” has a potentially useful nuance, referring specifically to whatever it is one took away from a lesson. I know the word “lesson” itself can also cover that meaning, but “learning” is more specific and given how widely it’s used, that specificity appears to be useful in some circumstances.

Oh okay, that makes sense, and I agree with you. That said, paying tax is still important for a number of reasons; and ultimately the national budget is a large bucket made up of small drops.

How can you be sure it’s not wealth trickling up instead?

Why do you care? The country has never paid back this debt, will never pay back this debt and no-one expects it to.

Some is also conceptually interesting and celebrated, for example the niceaunties project out of Singapore: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/19/auntie...

My partner is a graphic designer and now uses a lot of generative AI in her work. It’s very much an iterative process. She would run hundreds (sometimes thousands) of prompts over the course of compositing a single image. There’s huge amounts of editing involved, too. It doesn’t take less time than before when she was primarily an illustrator. But it enables her to do different types of artwork she wasn’t previously able to.

It’s definitely different. And has some bad sides for sure. But professionals using LLMs for creative work tends to be a lot more involved than just typing a prompt.

Netflix and Uber both created new product categories in their respective markets. And both where quite established before there was any real competition in those product categories.

Netflix discovered that content was the only moat available to them, after which it was effectively inevitable that they become a major production studio. I think Uber are still trying to figure out their most, but ironically regulation is probably part of it.

OpenAI also created a new product category, but the competition was very quick to move into that category and has very deep pockets. At some point, they clearly felt regulation might be a moat but it’s hard to see them landing that and winning.

But that simply follows on from a shift in consumer behaviour. It’s nigh impossible to sell literary prose at any significant volume unless you have a sizeable social media following. The only exceptions are people who have a sizeable traditional media following and a specific personal reason for not being on social media.

I have no idea what you could mean by this unless you have a very specific personal definition of “government intervention in the market”.

The literature makes it clear that government intervention in markets is broadly necessary; the disagreement is around the how and what and why.

One response might be that stupidity isn’t something the government should be taxing.

Those people who have dedicated their career to a narrow topic can also be wrong. Not so much about the facts, but in assessing whether or not certain compromises or analogies that don’t map 1:1 matter for the purposes of what is trying to be communicated.

I agree generally. But I would say that assuming some level of context is quite reasonable. Someone considering Airtable probably isn’t confused and looking for furniture.

I quite liked the clarity-impact axes. When writing copy it can sometimes feel like a single linear spectrum. I was waiting for the advice to when in doubt, prioritize clarity over impact - especially for new products.

There was a period a few years back where LinkedIn was the easiest place on the internet to get organic reach. As such, the marketing guru set were all recommending LinkedIn as the best place to “build an audience”. I haven’t checked, but I’d guess the juice has been mostly squeezed out by now.

For what it’s worth, I agree. Adding more tracking definitely isn’t going to help. But I don’t think there are any easy solutions. I definitely don’t envy the people in charge of Firefox’s product strategy.