The simple version as I see it is that if Social Media account is used for PERSONAL things only, they can block people, if they use it to communicate within the scope of their job as a public servant then they can't.

Most people can't help themselves and comingle their public life and their private life.

What recourse would you have?

None. I'd just have to whip out my key, exchange a bunch of BTC for ten million hundred dollar bills, and retire into obscurity. I'd shrug and say "Oh well, I guess I'm not legally myself," as I wait for my harem to replace the hundred-dollar-bills-bedding that we're all going to fuck on.

That's probably what Craig Wright is doing right now. Why wouldn't he? If he's not doing this tonight, then he's probably not for real.

And this is on Slashdot why?

Ditto. News for nerds? Stuff that matters? I'm not seeing it.

So, a person creates an app, that fits a niche enough to start making money and a knockoff appears that literally steals customers. That's the real competition. And it sucks.

If there is evidence, I don't know about it. I merely infer its existence because the incentives are such that they benefit from attempting to be as accurate as they can. Undercharge and a claim can make them lose money. Overcharge and competitors take their customers.

But I don't think anyone really knew all the factors the insurance industry was using, and how they weighed them before this, either. Their algorithms have always been proprietary, haven't they?

Someone has to play Devil's Advocate, and I'm feeling like it today.

Insurance is about spreading risk, and different groups have different risks. Do you object to insurance costing more for a 16-year-old driver than it does for a 36-year-old driver? Do you object to insurance costing more for someone who has been in 3 collisions than 0 collisions, or for someone with 3 speeding or careless driving tickets, than someone with 0 tickets? Men vs women? This ZIP code vs that ZIP code?

This is just more of that.

If it costs you more, you're a victim of accuracy, but if it costs you less, then you're a beneficiary of accuracy. Boo hoo or yay, depending on how well you drive.

And this merely involves information that the buyer had already decided doesn't need to be kept private. Before they spent their money, they knew the vehicle spies on them; they just (maybe) forgot the consequences of that spying. If you cared enough to make sure your vehicle (and phone, watch, etc) doesn't spy on you, then you don't have the "problem" of your insurance premiums accurately reflecting your actual risk.

And so, I think that deep down, this is basically fair. Though I think that if it ever became maximally (magically!) accurate, then there would no longer be need for insurance at all, since we'd all know the future and then be able to plan for our liabilities (or lack thereof) directly, without amortizing it across the larger population. And that would be even more fair, though it's impossible to achieve.

Wow, I did NOT SEE that coming

They are back to censoring people now. Elon isn't in charge and those that are, are in fact increasingly censoring people like the good old days.

The end is nigh

Obviously didn't see the recent bruhaha about broken AI models due to over sensitive DEI type modeling.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/ar...

That wasn't AI's LLM problem, that was a human programmer (AI Training) problem. The result is effectively censorship. Luckily we live in a free and open society, so they were caught and exposed. The results were both terrifying and Humorous. I searched on Google a few different ways to get the link above, but Google has effectively (tried to anyways) censored it.

Censorship doesn't work in a free and open society.

Class Action Lawsuit should be available, right?

And I would suggest that any terms of service that changes functionality AFTER purchase is not a legal contract, as there is no option to negotiate. Terms of Service changes that take consumers' rights away should be null and void, IMHO

That anyone gives a flying fuck about the exchange rate of Bitcoin is sad, and kind of shows that Bitcoin has failed at its purpose.

If Bitcoin had been successful, then instead of people talking about exchange rates, they'd be talking about the speed and/or the competitive pricing of transaction processing. That stuff is what matters, and stressing those values is how Bitcoin would have become good and generally usable.

If anything, the volatility of Bitcoin, and yes that even includes it going up in price (with the side-effect of making holders rich), is a weakness and just another thing to its discredit.

I wanted to like Bitcoin. I really did. I still think that deep down, there's a really great idea behind it. But that it's become an "investment" means that it's not worthy. Bitcoin has failed to live up to its hype, and the existence of this poll's question is an example of that failure.

I have no idea about Musk's legal claims and what he is owed. Maybe he's full of shit as usual, and maybe he has a great case.

But about having "open" in your name while your main product is proprietary: if I were on a jury, that combination of facts would give me the default assumption that the company intended willful fraud.

"Open"AI has the burden of proof that they're not crooks.

They can meet that burden by showing that we're all misspelling their name (it's really "O Peen AI"). Or they could meet that burden by providing a link to the full source and data, along with a statement that it's all been given to Public Domain.

Barring that, they very much look like intentional crooks who are deliberately ripping off all contributors and investors.