51–60 of 383 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isnt that updated by some national database and google just pulls that data? Apparently Apple Maps will also get it in a few days, since they get the data from them as well.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/apple-maps-changes-name-lak... Apple updated it yesterday. If I were Google I'd turn down that refresh rate and let someone else take the bad PR next time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ACLU has a long history of prevailing in court, as does the NRA. Courts should regularly issue rulings you don't like. Their job isn't to make people happy.
"long history of prevailing in court" is another way of saying "Google isn't being punished as much as they deserve" > Their job isn't to make people happy. Sure, but I think we can all agree the US legal system very, very, very rarely issues any ruling that materially punishes a corporation. Even the worst of the worst typically get off very easy. Do you disagree with that?
Those two things are completely different and have very different meanings. For the most part, the courts aren't the ones that fine businesses.
> There have been more than 180,000 corporate fines issued in the US between 2020 and 2024, totaling more than $345 billion
> 3M Company has been issued with the costliest fines, adding up to $18.6 billion
$345 billion over 4 years seems like a lot to me. Maybe it should be higher? I don't know.
[flagged]
Non-paywalled link
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of my point. How does one know something is a miscarriage of justice if you haven't read the ruling? Because you don't like the outcome?
I don't think it's a stretch to see a systemic pattern of big tech avoiding consequences that leave the rest of us in the power of monopolies. Regardless of the content of this ruling, it's another brick in the wall.
For example, many times the courts will point out that the laws need to be updated, which would be in the ruling. Or that a law as written is unconstitutional but it could be made so with some changes. That stuff doesn't make the headlines though, just the "Courts rules for/against X". Ideally we'd have a legislative branch that would look at these rulings and update our laws, but their disinterest in doing so isn't the courts' fault.
[flagged]
I kinda somewhat reluctantly agree with you, and I think other commenters are missing the point that breaking up Google may allow non-US competitors to rise up and take Google's place on the world stage. Thus, breaking them up is not in the national interest of the US.
It could also be argued that allowing Alphabet to sustain anticompetitive damages is exactly what creates the opportunity for them to be replaced. Alternatives to AdSense and YouTube can only succeed in America if Alphabet rests on their laurels and is artificially defended from natural price competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes the argument worse, not better. Google employees tens of thousands of people. The US intelligence apparatus employees hundreds of thousands of people. In all of that, over eight years, there are 251 people who moved between the two, and because of that absolute rounding error, the entire federal government is beholden to them? Since you are making the accusation that this is a real conspiracy: statisticall…
What conspiracy mate? It's not so deep, I was curious if what he said was a lie due to the downvotes and found nice evidence for it. You don't find it convincing it's your choice, but the dude didn't pull it out of his ass.
If you think it is "nice evidence", how many people should have moved between those two employers?
And you made the claim that the rate likely drastically increased over the past 10 years. Based on what, exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isnt that updated by some national database and google just pulls that data? Apparently Apple Maps will also get it in a few days, since they get the data from them as well.
Yes. We had the same comments about Gulf of America. Edit: I don't know that there's an actual database served up by the US Gov, but governments control the naming of these things within their own jurisdictions. All of the big mapping products have the ability to serve up different names based on where you're viewing from. And Apple just renamed: https://apnews.com/article/apple-lake-ontario-america-google...
I am curious though - is it convention to leave the data as is, or is it illegal to modify it?
Regardless, itll just be changed back in 2 years; as long as I can type "lake ontario" and get directed to Lake Ontario, I do not care at all what the gov database calls it currently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"long history of prevailing in court" is another way of saying "Google isn't being punished as much as they deserve" > Their job isn't to make people happy. Sure, but I think we can all agree the US legal system very, very, very rarely issues any ruling that materially punishes a corporation. Even the worst of the worst typically get off very easy. Do you disagree with that?
> "long history of prevailing in court" is another way of saying "Google isn't being punished as much as they deserve" Those two things are completely different and have very different meanings. For the most part, the courts aren't the ones that fine businesses. > There have been more than 180,000 corporate fines issued in the US between 2020 and 2024, totaling more than $345 billion > 3M Company has been issued with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isnt that updated by some national database and google just pulls that data? Apparently Apple Maps will also get it in a few days, since they get the data from them as well.
Yes. We had the same comments about Gulf of America. Edit: I don't know that there's an actual database served up by the US Gov, but governments control the naming of these things within their own jurisdictions. All of the big mapping products have the ability to serve up different names based on where you're viewing from. And Apple just renamed: https://apnews.com/article/apple-lake-ontario-america-google...