A minority that probably hates his guts.
How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform’s influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.
A minority that probably hates his guts.
How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform’s influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.
my experience with iCloud is pretty bad. I worked in a startup at some point which was giving Macs to employees and sort of expected them to figure it out. We had a few people quit and that’s when we figured out that the macs became shiny useless things since we didn’t have access to wipe the associated account and Apple didn’t help in any way. So, from my experience, this is a horrible “feature”.
Now i find out that it’s even worse and it gives 3rd parties means to harass you… I really think that avoiding theft comes at a far to high a price
Sure. My point was that exposing someone to scams like social engineering is really really bad and far less desirable than keeping an open line of communication for a purchase
Is it though? The author of this article knows what they’re doing, but a regular person would probably not be as relaxed with some of the threats. I didn’t see this in the article, how does the thief have the ability to contact the victim?
This doesn’t mean that there are reddit comments suggesting putting glue on pizza or even eating glue. It just means that the implementation of Google’s LLM is half baked and built it’s model in a weird way.
Google AI suggested you put glue on your pizza because a troll said it on Reddit once…
Genuine question: do you know that’s what happened? This type of implementation can suggest things like this without it having to be in the training data in that format.
Yes, thank you! I think this should be written in capitals somewhere so that people could understand it quicker. The answers are not wrong or right on purpose. LLMs don’t have any way of distinguishing between the two.
it’s funny how the conventional wisdom at the end of the last decade was that slack was preferred over other simpler/free alternatives because of its UX. People were hailing it for how simple and intuitive it was to use, etc.
5, 6 years later, it has become a bloated piece of crap riddled with bugs. And the UI changes which come unannounced… it should be a criminal offense to change UI through automated updates.
Anyway, here we are, companies have handed their data to this monster and we’ll see how they react when the data gets misused. Hopefully that would be the beginning of the end for it
Is it a scam? How does it work?
Yes, but paid content is not the norm and the reason for that is that blatant advertising and shoving malaware down people’s throats on grandma’s recipe website is not only legal, it’s a predictable business model.
Yeah, that’s fine, but at some point we need to start talking about alternative methods of monetization for websites. On the one hand, compiling a list of recipies on a website and maintaining that website is not easy or cheap and the owners should be able to make money out of it. On the other hand, the user should be able to pay for this comfortably and have a nice experience on the website.
This ad model doesn’t serve any of the two, business or consumer.
There is no such thing as pure capitalism.
Again, what happens to him personally or to Facebook as a company is irrelevant when it comes to how our lives are affected. The regulation of social platforms is good for society regardless of the efect regulation has on the owners or the companies owning the platforms.
Your argument is built around the wrong desirable outcome.