Things businesses have to hide from unauthorized access or making public accidentally:
Businesses only need to hide it if they are the data controller or the data processor engaged in confidence. YOUR PUBLIC PROFILE IS NOT THIS. *YOU* chose not to hide it. It is clearly mentioned that your profile is available and shared with others. It's your choice not to include a photo or your name in it.
Uhm, what it's called by everyone else in the tech industry is "personally identifiable information" or PII.
Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. It is published, by you. When you setup WhatsApp you're explicitly told it'll be available for other's to see. You've explicitly authorised people to view it.
Your name is considered personal information when you enter an agreement to share it in confidence. That's not what happens in public profiles. In other news Phonebooks used to exist, vast databases printed out and delivered to everyone in the city containing the PII of everyone else.
There will always be a few crazies, but the reality is the overwhelming supermajority of details in the phonebook were 100% accurate and available.
The number isn't Gemini users, it's AI Overviews. They are *ONLY* counting the search.
There is a discussion about that underway. No doubt the OP will turn around and spin that into yet another EU being anti-American tech company rant.
"Can't afford" and "CBF" are two different things. You spend your money on the MIC, we'll spend it on our people. There's a reason why we're rated the top in happiness among the west and the USA further down the bottom.
No it's far from the most expensive option. But yes it's not always the cheapest, but that's completely beside the point, TFA postulates a scenario where the cancellations have disappeared. They objectively haven't. They are right there and you're not even denying that fundamental point I was making.
I was in Chicago only 5 months ago I didn't pay a cent extra for 3 day cancellation. The Hilton I stayed at 2 weeks later (the Marriott was sold out) had 24h cancellation, no extra charge.
At this point it's not a question of if we are screwing whales, it's how and how much. Between noise from shipping and sonar, fishing, whaling, general pollution, micro plastics, and climate change, we aren't doing them any favours.
They would rather not sell you a car. More profitable to sell you a loan to buy a car, or even better just lease it to you for a monthly fee, then take it back and sell it to someone else, maybe in a different market.
List prices are mostly to deter people buying those cars, but at least in the UK if you look around you can usually get them with a very hefty discount. Mine was about 30% off.
Don't buy it! I will, though.
Exactly. Fortunately many people didn't buy it. https://80.lv/articles/call-of...
This isn't about the slop. If you're a fan of regulation, and saving jobs isn't a good enough reason for you, wait you're not actually a fan.
Except banning tools used for efficiency isn't about saving jobs. This isn't a zero sum game (in the literal sense). There's not a fixed number of games that developers are able to be hired for or worked on. There's a question of how much of a game needs how many resources attached to it, nothing more, nothing less. Less developers needed for one game allows a second game to be made by the same resources. If anything the world would be a better place if people worked on something other than yet another Call of Duty.
Also it's horseshit to claim you're not a fan of regulation just because you're not a fan of saving job through forcing inefficiency. What next, you're not a fan of regulation unless you support a government program of forced employment because it creates jobs? Just remember next time you hear about unemployment going up while you eat your burger that you're not getting food poisoning because of regulations and that it has nothing to do with jobs. What a fucking stupid argument you just made.
What Market? You mean the one were people are complaing about AI Slop in video games as was quoted in the article. So it seem the market has spoken and yes they would like regulation.
In what way has the market spoken by asking for regulation? The market doesn't ask for regulation. If you want to make a point then you could post references to the fact that Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 has underperformed on release quite massively. That's a market response. It's also an indication that regulation isn't needed.
Use archive.is if you can't figure it out otherwise.
That seems like a lot of effort. I prefer to simply not read WSJ. Post a workable link next time.
why be a c@nt?
Are you a cat? Didn't think so. I wouldn't go criticising other people for being a catn't if you're not a cat yourself.
Many aligators will be slain, but the swamp will remain.
