Rottcodd

As I just noted on another response, mostly it was that I came up with a delicious turn of phrase and couldn’t not post it. And yes, while broadly I think that Google deserves every bit of shit that’s thrown their way and more - that they could vanish from the face of the Earth tomorrow and the internet could only benefit - this particular incident really isn’t a good example.

I have to admit that I was so pleased with that turn of phrase when it came to me that I went ahead and posted it in spite of the fact that this specific incident doesn’t appear to be a good example.

It’s really sort of amazing how few years it took to go from “Do no evil” to “Don’t even bother pretending not to.”

Axiomatically, no, since it isn’t even AI in any meaningful sense of the term, so it fails to live up to its hype right out the gate.

So… aren’t these wannabe twitter competitors going about the whole thing bass-ackwards?

I saw a broadly similar article the other day about some sort of shakeup in the Mastodon board of directors.

It’s as if they think the way do do an internet startup is to first appoint a board of directors and hire a raft of executives, then… um… you know… um… do some business… kinda… stuff…

Nicely clarified.

Yes - the way I said it leaves the possibility that they have to pay at minimum their profit, and no - that should not be the case. They should have to pay at minimum their total revenue.

This shouldn’t be an exception - it should be the rule.

At the very least, companies should be fined every single cent that they made off of something criminal, and really, they should be fined much more than they made.

If they’re fined less than they made off of it, it’s not even really a fine. It’s just the government taking a cut of the action.

Wrong about what? I don’t even get what the point is supposed to be.

Are you saying that people transition from Linux to Windows? That seems obviously backwards.

Are you saying that Linux is female and Windows is male? That’s not even coherent.

What am I supposed to be trying to prove wrong?

Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?

I already generally do.

What’s all the fuss about, you don’t care?

I honestly don’t much care, but that’s because western civilization is circling the drain, warped and undermined at every turn by wealthy and powerful psychopaths, and it’s just not worth it to care, since there’s absolutely nothing I can do to stop them

Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?

Some sort of revenue stream is potentially necessary, but that’s the extent of it. Advertising is just one revenue stream, and even if we limit the choices to that, there are still many different ways it could be implemented.

The specific forms of advertising to which we’re subjected on the internet are very much not necessary. And they don’t exist as they do because the costs of serving content require that much revenue - they exist as they do to pay for corporate bloat - ludicrously expensive real estate and facilities and grotesquely inflated salaries for mostly useless executive shitheads.

Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?

Again, that’s what I already do, so it would just add more sites to those I won’t visit.

Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?

At this point, the two are almost always one and the same. Internet technology is primarily harnessed to the goal of maximizing income for the well-positioned few, and all other considerations are secondary.

Is this no different from using any other technology platform that’s free (If it’s free, you’re the product)?

This is cynically amusing on Lemmy.

Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from privacy invasive practices of the past?

Of course they should, but they won’t, because they’re psychopaths. They’ll never give up any of their grotesque and destructive privilege, even if that means that they ultimately destroy the host on which they’re parasites.

I guess by that I use fingertip, but I think it’d be more accurate to say that I use palm adapted for big hands.

The few times that I’ve had a mouse big enough to palm it without my fingers sticking out too far, that’s what I’ve done, and that’s definitely my preference. It’s just that the vast majority of mouses are too small for that.

I was just thinking the other day that it’s about time to replay this game. So I guess it is.

The thing I really can’t understand, and a likely consequence of the ubiquity of apps, is all of the people who can’t seem to function without them.

Like when the Reddit exodus to the threadiverse happened, people started immediately crying for Lemmy apps. And it doesn’t seem to matter that much how bare-bones or unstable one might be - the important thing is that it’s an app. That’s all that seems to matter to them.

It’s as if they aren’t even aware of the fact that these are all websites, so they all work in a browser - as if to them, an app is a necessity and they can’t figure out how to accomplish anything otherwise.

Right, but that wasn’t really my point. I mean “artificial intelligence,” as the term has come to be used in this current world in which, for example, film and television producers want to have large language models write scripts, is a substitute for intelligence, in that people who don’t possess actual intelligence want to use it to create strings of words with which to impress other people who don’t possess actual intelligence. It’s pretend intelligence by and for people who don’t possess the real kind.

It just struck me that artificial intelligence is an accurate term after all, just in a different sense than the classic idea of a non-living consciousness.

It’s “artificial intelligence” in that it’s a substitute for real intelligence.

Lately it seems that all too much of my life is spent alternately laughing at things that are so ludicrous that only a blithering moron would fall for them and dejectedly remembering that the world is stuffed to the brim with blithering morons.

Why should that difference matter, in particular when it comes to the principle I mentioned?

Because creative works are rather obviously fundamentally different from physical objects, in spite of a number of shared qualities.

Like physical objects, they can be distinguished one from another - the text of Moby Dick is notably different from the text of Waiting for Godot, for instance

More to the point, like physical objects, they’re products of applied labor - the text of Moby Dick exists only because Herman Melville labored to bring it into existence.

However, they’re notably different from physical objects insofar as they’re quite simply NOT physical objects. The text of Moby Dick - the thing that Melville labored to create - really exists only conceptually. It’s of course presented in a physical form - generally as a printed book - but that physical form is not really the thing under consideration, and more importantly, the thing to which copyright law applies (or in the case of Moby Dick, used to apply). The thing under consideration is more fundamental than that - the original composition.

And, bluntly, that distinction matters and has to be stipulated because selectively ignoring it in order to equivocate on the concept of rightful property is central to the NoIP position, as illustrated by your inaccurate comparison to a pen.

Nobody is trying to control the use of pens (or computers, as they were being compared to). The dispute is over the use of original compositions - compositions that are at least arguably, and certainly under the law, somebody else’s property.

The only thing I’ll potentially sort of miss is the cynical comedy of the absolutely godawful shit they recommend when they don’t have a watch history to base anything on.

I block every one I see, without exception.

Of course they did.

The days in which businesses competed by trying to make the best possible product for the best possible price are dead and gone - sacrificed on the altar of shortsighted greed.

The current strategy is to make the shittiest possible product for the highest possible price, then try to manipulate things so that it sells anyway.

And that’s been Tesla’s strategy since day one.

looking through fonts to find an “X” he likes

So… you didn’t read the OP.

Yes though - I really do believe that he personally chose it, or more likely already had it in mind.

And then he played some Diablo IV, then jerked off, then played some more Diablo IV.