I honestly don’t know. True or not, though, it’s an interesting idea!

Yeah. What the hell were the plaintiffs supposed to do? How do you get proof of something like this? Break into an exec’s office? Hack an auto manufacturer’s network?

Oh, wait a sec. Evidence that’s acquired illegally generally isn’t admissible. So even those ridiculous plans wouldn’t work. I guess the best we can do is wait until the harm is done, and then hope there’s a sloppy enough paper trail to unequivocally prove exactly who did it.

Apparently, that’s MUCH better than using some common sense.

An auto manufacturer, who has no business snooping on your texts in the first place, should not have permission to keep copies of them. Ever. It’s an absurdly obvious question. The plaintiffs shouldn’t have to prove they’ve been harmed. The auto manufacturers should have to prove that their intentions benefit all customers, AND that those benefits outweigh the risks.

And no, advertising that’s specifically targeted at my perceived needs and interests doesn’t count as a “benefit”. Sorry not sorry.

I’m going to assume this judge hasn’t been unduly influenced.

This looks like a classic case of following the letter of the law, while ignoring the spirit of the law. The law seems like it’s intended to punish harmful violations of privacy. No reasonable person can conclude that the sale of tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people’s private data is entirely harmless, but that’s what this judge did.

US courts often take “reasonable” assumptions into account when making judgments or issuing sentences. Just because the plaintiffs couldn’t actually prove specific damage is no reason to assume it didn’t/won’t happen.

To me, it should only “matter” for technical reasons - to help find the root of the problem and fix it at the source. If your roof is leaking, then fix the roof. Don’t become an expert on where to place the buckets.

You’re right, though. It doesn’t matter in terms of excusing or justifying anything. It shouldn’t have been allowed to happen in the first place.

Something as simple and obvious as this makes me wonder what other hidden biases are just waiting to be discovered.

I have no idea who those two guys in the background are, but I feel sorry for them anyway just because they’re there.

Interesting (and disturbing) contrast. I haven’t done any programming, so I appreciate the perspective!

Thank you! I was starting to wonder if I simply expressed myself poorly, but you explained what I was trying to ask about. Now I get it!

Did you mean to reply to me? You’re kind of asking what I’m asking. I wouldn’t imagine there’s a “first dose” if the website is shitty and annoying to use. Instead of dopamine, wouldn’t there be bad memories and unpleasant associations?

I don’t have an account on any of their stuff, but even I recognize that this is a nice burn.

Okay, I have no problem admitting I’m naïve on the subject. If I guessed wrong, though, what is addiction about? It’s hard for me to imagine getting addicted to something you aren’t likely to use and don’t like.

Sure, I can see people changing their mind about something once they’re already addicted, but that’s not the same thing.

I’m the last person who would leap to Meta’s defense, but I gotta ask: how, exactly, does one draw the line between a service being addictive and one that’s just well designed and pleasant to use?

I wouldn’t want this lawsuit to discourage quality web design.

Good. I hope people and organizations keep leaving.

If I felt like I was forming a “friendship” with one of these artificial personalities, I’d want more control - not in a maniacal way, but because I wouldn’t trust Meta (or whoever) not to say “meh, this isn’t profitable, so we’re shutting it down next month.”

We’re already far too dependent on corporations, but in most cases, they haven’t had the power to emotionally damage us in this specific way. I don’t want to give them that kind of power over me.

I really don’t like it when corporations become involved in public services.

“It will not record audio, and it will not use facial recognition,”…

YET

The NYPD does not own the robot, Adams said, but is in fact leasing it from the Knightscope company…

A company which I’m sure is 100% ethical, and has no ulterior motives whatsoever.

I had been thinking “charge” in the financial sense, but now that you mention it, a bunch of rhinos would be much more entertaining!

I want to charge Musk every time he makes another asshole announcement about running one of his companies into the ground. Just fuck off, dude.

No, it’s far from great, but it’s better than allowing shenanigans like this to become the norm - and they will become the norm unless Unity pays severely.

Okay. I was already annoyed, but now I’m like “seriously, fuck these people.” I hope Unity is driven out of business.

Conservatives can openly break the law, and laugh while doing so. Liberals too often lack the spine to make them pay serious consequences, or any consequences at all. I can’t blame people for losing faith in democracy when it’s disintegrating before our eyes.

Whenever anyone reading this feels stupid or embarrassed, just remember the “protesters” standing out in the cold in support of Apple. It will make you feel better.

I would have actually preferred to see him get fired and leave the office in furious humiliation. This is good too, though!

I love it when they’re faced with judges who don’t tolerate that crap. They simply cannot process the idea of needing actual proof. They’ll fire lawyers who don’t just tell them what they want to hear, but the problem remains, and it BLOWS THEIR MINDS.

Those damn things are not ready to be used on public roads. Allowing them is one of the more prominent examples of corruption that we’ve seen recently.

In a separate filing, Digital World said it also was not ready to file two required quarterly financial reports covering the first half of this year, saying it could not complete them in time without “unreasonable effort or expense.” It has sparred with its former auditors in SEC filings and letters over who is to blame for missing information.

This was a law they knew about from day one, right? Don’t the people who run this circus claim to be professionals? Sorry, folks, but incompetence isn’t a valid excuse. It isn’t “unreasonable” to demand that you comply with the law. If you have to pull a few all-nighters because of your own poor planning, that’s just too bad.

A Twitch stream said Starfield was on. When I looked at the stream, the person who I assume was the streamer was sitting on her bed, DJing bad music, and talking about how she thought canals were natural, not manmade.

I muttered something rude and didn’t keep watching.

You’re completely right to feel that way. As an American, it’s mind blowing to me, too. I really don’t like the fact that “hidden fees” have become normal.

From my (very limited) understanding, the underlying reason is the health of the national economy.

A bunch of businesses giving up their office space would destroy the commercial real estate market, and that could trigger another economic recession/depression. It could take the economy years to recover, costing companies billions, and bankrupting some of them. Even fierce competitors will work together in order to prevent that from happening. (I’m not sure how realistic that fear is; I’m just explaining their reasoning.)

So, while an individual corporation would benefit in the short term by moving to a building that’s only one third as big, the long term risks to the economy scare them off. In fact, the only reason working from home is still being discussed is because there’s a shortage of skilled workers. Companies can’t dictate terms quite as strongly as they could a few years ago. Employees see working from home as a major perk, or even a necessity. Inflexible companies invariably lose some of their best people, so they have to allow at least a few work from home options.

Personally, I like seeing corporations being forced to compromise.

I apologize for offending you with my positivity and self-deprecating humor. I didn’t realize I was speaking to a god. Living among us fallible humans must be frustrating for you.

If it works for you and you’re happy with it, then ignore the haters (like me) and enjoy! 👍

Good point. I was assuming that “smart home” integration would require an internet connection, but that doesn’t have to be the case. Thank you for clarifying that!

I have yet to see a “smart home” feature that’s worth the potential problems, let alone the cost.

Yeah, a well-integrated smart home can do some pretty cool stuff, but it also means putting my trust in corporations even more than I already have to. Plus, I’ll have to worry about each major appliance I own possibly being bricked due to a buggy software update or a malicious hacker.

Keep my home nice and dumb. Thanks.

This is a serious, sad article, but it contains one extremely funny line.

“I joined the army in 2016. I began to have doubts immediately. The people there are, I’m sorry, mostly idiots.”

It also includes some very poignant ones.

“A month after I escaped, they opened a criminal case against me. But I don’t consider myself a betrayer. How can you be a criminal in the eyes of criminals?”

”In September [after mobilization was announced], the rules of the game changed. We realized that we had to leave by any means necessary. One could leave Ukraine either dead or wounded. When I already had just a few people left, we were sent on another suicide mission. We crippled ourselves. Intentionally.”

As if the situation wasn’t horrific enough. Sadists.

Games don’t need better, more complex graphics. They need adequate time and resources during the development process. They need to actually be completed by their release date, not just barely playable. They need to be held to a higher standard of quality when publishers judge if they’re ready to sell.

That sanitized corpspeak just sticks out like a sore thumb, right? It takes deliberate, continuous effort not to start zoning out as soon as I hear it.

I don’t see it as bias. It’s a good explanation, and I appreciate you taking the time!

Unless you count a few temp jobs, I’ve never worked in a corporate office.

I agree. I was caught off guard because it didn’t show up on my radar at all. It’s not like I thought “eh, it’s only a little bit racy”. I just missed the sex implications completely.

I guess I’m kinda naive. “You gonna dance on that table, or just stand on it?” doesn’t sound like a sex joke to me, but that’s what people are calling it.