131–140 of 386 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft doesn't believe in consent, it believes in yes or every 3 days.
I am reminded of Steve Jobs's video where he says Microsoft has no taste everytime MS pushes this stuff on it's users. True in 90s, true now Video https://youtu.be/lahX_ARGTqA?si=AnULWzRbl7cc3UWu
Calling advertisements "product tips" as if everybody is too stupid to understand what that means. They created an amazing technology that oftentimes is indistinguishable from magic and then use it to deliver ads and - sorry about the tangent - kill people. This really is the quote of the century: > The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads What a waste.
> They created an amazing technology that oftentimes is indistinguishable from magic and then use it to deliver ads The people who created the tech and the ones that use it for ads in this case are two different groups - the first one is from Google (initial discovery) and OpenAI (realizing the potential of discovery and developing it into a product), whereas the second is the same company that decided that building…
Calling advertisements "product tips" as if everybody is too stupid to understand what that means. They created an amazing technology that oftentimes is indistinguishable from magic and then use it to deliver ads and - sorry about the tangent - kill people. This really is the quote of the century: > The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads What a waste.
They were not ads though. The companies did not pay for those, from what I can tell. Microsoft seemed to really thought they were being helpful here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Small correction: there was one very publicized school bombing with a lot of casualties, but there's more than one bombed school. The US and Israel have bombed several schools, hospitals, and civil servants' offices, and residential buildings. I read HRANA's report on the war every morning. [1] It's a quick read, they are a reliable Iranian opposition source (now based in the US). Each day, there are multiple strikes…
Surely it's the precision that makes them war crimes? If the missiles weren't meter-accurate, and the intelligence didn't eg show the lines painted on the playground (even in images available to the public) then they would be able to pass it off as mistakes or enemy propaganda.
The accuracy helps with showing intent, though, because when your 50% accuracy radius is a couple of meters and you put a couple of missiles on a target that’s a hundred of meters of anything else, it’s hard to argue they were sidetracked.
"You're just a bunch of fanatic, Linux obsessed Microsoft haters living in the past. Microsoft are the good guys now." -- ca. everyone here, during the GitHub acquisition
> ca. everyone here Every time someone claims “everyone on HN thought X”, I go back to check and find out that it was not true and that the discussions had both people in favour and against. Every time. But this case is particularly bad, I’m checking the top voted comments and so far the feeling is of dread and wariness, the complete opposite of what you claim. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17227286 I really w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It certainly won't change with that kind of attitude. Don't you want to live a peaceful life and be free from your baser instincts? I believe most people do, and if they don't, the mission of those who have education and means should be to show the way in that direction, instead of shrugging off the worst things and excusing them on "monkeys", which IMO is insulting to monkeys.
The reflex to assign our morally wrong behaviour to the animal part in us is quite ironic. I just don't see jellyfish building concentration camps.
Calling advertisements "product tips" as if everybody is too stupid to understand what that means. They created an amazing technology that oftentimes is indistinguishable from magic and then use it to deliver ads and - sorry about the tangent - kill people. This really is the quote of the century: > The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads What a waste.
They were not ads though. The companies did not pay for those, from what I can tell. Microsoft seemed to really thought they were being helpful here.
I see it as just preparation for selling the space. After a few months of "tips" they go to companies and say, "hey, you know those tips we have in our PRs? You can be in every 10th one of them for X dollars?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You could just as easily see it as the best minds are building huge amounts of amazing, free technology and need a way to pay for it. That's a false dichotomy. First of all, the technology is far from "free". It's easily accessible, perhaps, but users pay handsomely to use it, even if they're unaware of it, which most adtech companies go out of their way to ensure. Secondly, advertising isn't the only business mode…
It's hardly a black and white area, and there's more to this question than just GOOG, but there's a joke here that has some relevance: Those bastards have bled us dry with their algorithms, taken all the data we had, and not just from us, but from our children, our children's children, our children's children's children, our children's children's children's children... and what have they ever given us in return? The…
Was advertising necessary to produce all of this inarguably useful technology? Is this technology somehow unique in the world?
There are alternatives to all of those products that are not monetized via advertising. You may argue that they're not good enough, and I may agree to some extent, but they certainly work well enough for many people who decide to not use Google and other ad supported products and services.
Google et al don't have a monopoly on "amazing" technology. They just dominate the market to make it seem like they do.
Besides, it's not like Google developed these products in a vacuum (except perhaps early web search). Many of them are based on the work of other companies and individuals, which they either acquired, forked, or depend on. Which is fine, but the point is that not all of it is built and maintained entirely by G.[1]
[1]: The Roman analogy actually works in this sense as well, since accomplishments of the Roman empire were also largely based on work borrowed, adapted, or simply stolen from others. So were all the atrocities they committed necessary to advance technology? Perhaps. But if alternatives existed during their time that didn't come with the same downsides, I'm sure people would choose to use those instead, which is where your analogy falls flat. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They created an amazing technology that oftentimes is indistinguishable from magic and then use it to deliver ads The people who created the tech and the ones that use it for ads in this case are two different groups - the first one is from Google (initial discovery) and OpenAI (realizing the potential of discovery and developing it into a product), whereas the second is the same company that decided that building…
OpenAI is testing ads already: https://openai.com/index/testing-ads-in-chatgpt/