- 0 Posts
- 29 Comments
And that still would be legal.
Mcdonalds has existed for decades with that model. The only lawsuits against them are usually settled, and about shit where they knowingly lied like about Transfats. You can’t blame Mcdonalds for your unhealthy eating, you can’t blame one supermarket because it doesn’t sell what you think is healthy. So sure, your version is perfectly fine too… and yet is still legal.
Ever been to a candy store? A chocolate shop? Even Cheescake Factory is really unhealthy in general and still is a major chain? At some point personal responsibility is what it comes down to.
I don’t have a problem with this. My office made this rule too, basically you chose hybrid, in person, or full remote. I went full remote. I don’t have a desk at the office, but I’m not required to come in. When I go in there’s hoteling offices, meaning I get an office to work, and theoretically if I went in for a week, I can leave my stuff there, but after that week, I take my stuff and go home.
4 days every two month is WAY too low to maintain an office for a person. Heck even 2 days a week is borderline. Companies want to reduce their floorplans, and that’s reasonable if they allow full remote, as long as full remote means full remote. (not required to come in)
I mean yeah. It doesn’t have to even be “Linux” but a smaller required core library, instead of every application getting forced onto a user computer. I’ve a theory that over 90 percent of a computer’s hardware is only required because of coding standards that could be improved. (Small more efficient code versus get it shippable and move on)
I’m a little impressed Linux hasn’t had the massive bloat that most of the programming industry has taken on. “Let’s pull in every library, take up more space and never optimize code”. Linux seems to have avoided that, and that’s a good sign. I don’t even think it’s a OSS thing, because many OSS software slowly bloat up when people keep adding features to them. Linux has avoided that so kudos to them.
Don’t know the rules (They probably keep changing) but you can see it here in incognito mode.
Even if that was the case, I’d make an alt account no one knows about to be able to look at his tweets if I cared enough. The point I was making it is it’s dumb to “Block what people can see” when they can get around it with a couple button clicks.
(And to be clear because I’m getting downvoting, I’m not saying blocking is bad, but the implementation is pretty dumb, and at least removing the “You can’t see this message because he blocked you” should be removed.)
I would love to see/feel Windows is reaching the point where it’s a small program with tons of optional programs, but god damn, I’m so sick of these bloated fucking OSes.
Android now takes 20+ gigs, Windows takes massive amounts of hard drive. And I know someone will say there’s a way to configure it, but the amount of bloat that people just accept on programs is insane.
It’s silly when Call of duty Warzone requires 150 GB, it’s a bigger problem when windows continues to consume more and more memory with out a good reason other than pushing new products and services most customers don’t want/use.
While removing it is stupid, I also think it’s a limited feature. I am blocked by Jason Schreier like many people in gaming culture are. (I didn’t even comment on his post, but he did a mass block based on who responded to another person’s post because that’s the type of person he is) He’s a relatively famous gaming journalist so when someone links his messages I can’t see them, right?
Well I can, I just open an incognito window, and I still get to see what ever he’s posting, because when you aren’t logged in you get to see everything.
So in that way Block doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Limiting who can interact with you might needed, but limiting who can see what you post doesn’t really.
There is still “Mute” which I use much more often to get rid of “Console war” crap, from my feed, but honestly I also just don’t use “X” Because in general I haven’t found it that useful, and feels like it’s always been a massive time waster. If Elon is making other people realize that now, I’d say he’s doing a great job in waking up people to the fact that it’s always been a pretty shitty social media.
And how did that case end?
Hint: Not well You can try to sue anyone for anything. There’s just no guarentee it’ll work, and it didn’t there.
There are cases that do work, such as about transfats but that is about specifically misleading someone, not supplying something unhealthy. Also that was settled, not fully through the courts.
This is true, but public reaction isn’t the same as government intervention. People are accountable for their actions to others. The government can’t limit speech but businesses can limit speech on their premises, and individuals can hold people accountable.
That saying Rosanne fucked herself years earlier with the “Ambien tweet” and that was decades after pissing off everyone while grabbing her crotch when singing the national anthem. She’s had a lot of controversies. The fact she even had a platform to say something about the holocaust is insane, considering her career was toast after the Ambien thing. Which kind of sucks for her because the Conners are still going strong.
Ask yourself if the American government had the ability to talk directly to the Russian populace with no interference from their government, what might they say/do/cause to happen.
That’s what Tiktok is, and that’s what a lot of the fear is about. It’s know that all Chinese companies have heavy connections to the government, so if they wanted to do something they could.
Not even saying Tiktok is that bad, mostly just saying Americans, especially the government is a bunch of fucking hypocrites about this shit.
Honestly, keep it to “If you don’t like it don’t use it” and leave it at that. The idea of the government picking what social network people are allowed on seems foolish, and I imagine many people will side load the app (At least on Android) if it’s officially banned.
last YT revenue was 29.24 billion USD
That’s a huge number, but it is meaningless. It’s more important to focus on profit (or net income) and unfortunately those numbers aren’t as easy to get. You can see all the financials but while Youtube gets revenue numbers, how much they pay to partners, and they spend on google services isn’t itemized.
They are probably operating at a profit, but definitely not 29 billiuon dollars of profit
Unfortunately people like things for free, so “Free” means faster user acquisition.
But what really sucks is now everything feels like it’s a microtransaction haven… It’s not just “subscriptions” but “Ad ons” and more.
Paying for a program feels almost dead, paying for a service is on the way out, because you’re now paying to be on a ad supported service, and they’ll keep trying to push that as “how it should be”.
There are 18 year olds who have never bought a piece of software before. And there’s probably plenty that have only purchased games. Push Xbox Game Pass more and we may even have people who never bought anything, because the modern world isn’t about you “Owning” anything, it’s about leasing, licensing, and reoccurring payments.
My comments were about principles,
So absolutely has no value in this discussion, thanks for clarifying.
The link has some of the things he said that are clearly not so innocuous as you seem to portray given the rise of the right wing.
I didn’t click this link, because I don’t really care. My father was Jewish, and he could say all Jewish people should be killed and I still would say he doesn’t deserve to be put in jail. Sorry, your outrage doesn’t override the first amendment. It’s not “It’s a joke” defense… it’s “There’s freedom of speech”. Hard stop. Are their limitations to it? Sure, but I’m pretty sure he’s not hitting those bars.
You are misinformed
No you’re talking about “Principles” which means you’re in the wrong topic and the wrong discussion. And you’re not misinformed, but willfully ignoring the reality of the situation. Maybe you’re angry you’re not right and you’re trying to defend your position, but here’s the thing, your position doesn’t matter, the law matters… And no one is keeping score, so it’s ok, you’re wrong here, just stop making up shit.
at worst are resorting to the usual alt right talking points.
I always love this point. “If you don’t agree with me, you’re the enemy.” I guess the ACLU is the Alt-Right, as is any lawyer who defends someone charged with saying something that hurt someone’s feelings.
As for “priorities”. If you think freedom of speech isn’t important, let’s think about that. It’s great right now, Nazi’s can’t say shit, you can say anything you want to them. But what’s that, a future where someone you don’t like is in power, and suddenly you can’t say anything and some party (potentially Nazis) can… Oh shit, well maybe Freedom of Speech IS actually important.
As a matter of principle,
I’ll repeat this again, “principles” don’t matter, laws do.
which is that I do not place the ultimate value on freedom of speech
That’s fine, but we’re all talking about an American case, let’s focus on American laws, and not “What dublet feel is right”.
This is the last time I’m responding to you because you’ve made it clear you’re talking about the world according you. I live in a real place, with actual laws, where this case is taking place. It’s called the United States of America. It doesn’t matter where you live, it doesn’t matter what laws apply to you. We’re talking about a specific place and specific laws. When you want to talk about those laws… well find someone else because you’ve already wasted enough of my time, but until you focus on how the world actually works, really no one should waste their time discussing your version of the law… because it has no basis in reality.
Oh pretending you were always talking about US when BOTH of your previous links are from the UK? Come on bro…
And you’re citing a law and not considering how it’s applied for the last couple centuries or even years. In very broad terms, you can’t just claim they said something inflamatory and that person did something. For the most part they need to be rather specific for that law to apply.
“Someone should do something about that mosque” isn’t the same as saying “Someone should blow up that specific mosque”. And almost every time this comes up the radicalization knows how to avoid going over the line. But if I posted a message that said “someone should blow up that mosque” It would be myself that would get in trouble, not lemmy, or Youtube or where ever I posted it.
The problem is “Solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade” That’s usually far more specific than you seem to think. It’s part of the way organized crime was able to survive so long, until RICO cases were made, and those cases basically bypass this by saying there’s a (Criminal) “enterprise”.
The other problem you have is complaining about the “Algorithm” but not understanding that itself would likely be a defense in that it’s designed to promote retention, not radicalization, but that would even assume it’ll get to court, which in this case it’ll almost certainly not. The fact they’re not going after a specific person probably means they’re targeting a vague “radicalization” which hey, you have a good point in your first link. The radicalization would be illegal under UK law. But if he did in the US, he likely would not be in jail.
But then again we don’t jail people for teaching dogs to do the nazi salute, so yeah, strange. We have different laws here that I still don’t think you understand.
This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight.
Radicalizing someone to do this isn’t a crime. Freedom of speech isn’t absolute but unless someone gives them actual orders it would still be protected.
Don’t apply UK’s lack of freedom of speech in American courts.
Is anyone surprised?
We knew they could do automatic captions (Don’t know why don’t offer that standard any more). We know they monitor what’s in the video, meaning the words. We know this was an automated system.
I don’t even think there’s an ounce of anything new here to anyone who has been paying attention.
Don’t worry as long as your company isn’t making you worry about it. I just personally chose full remote, but the people who chose hybrid have probably done as you say or less. And even when they do come in for “Collaboration days”, they sit with us in a conference room.
I’m not going to make it an issue, but you’d fit in at my company. Then again we haven’t (And may never have) a mandatory RTO.