It's this. It's kind of hilarious, really, I've watched the PS5 go from a thing you couldn't get in stores because they were never in stock to a thing stores aren't stocking because no one wants one. Sony has screwed the thing up to the point that Sony themselves have started releasing games on PC.

But the PSVR2 was always kind of a weird product. It costs as much as the console itself (I think, it looks like buying both would be $1100 total), making it more expensive than the Quest 3 ($500), while being tethered to a physical device. It doesn't support the original PSVR games, but yet has a library that consists mostly of PSVR games ported over to it. And given the above, with gamers having mostly given up on the PS5, it's clear that isn't going to change.

Since you seem knowledgable, I honestly have to ask this boomer-sounding question: Why does anyone install the Tiktok, Facebook, or Reddit apps on their phone? People send me tiktok links and Google gives me tiktok links, and they work just fine. I get it if someone is a creator -- but for the majority of people they just browse. Isn't the browser sufficient? I don't even have an account -- what am I missing? Having visited the site plenty of times in a private window, I've never found any reason to engage any more than that. I honestly just don't get it.

An AC gave an interesting option I've never considered before. What if we allow the user to select from various open moderation algorithms? The user could turn it all off and thus see everything. They could choose to option to disable nazi bullshit, then maybe hate speech, then maybe various 3rd-party filters that tend to lean left, or right, or whatever. This sounds awesome to me -- I can tailor the filter based on my preferences, and I could even make my own. Maybe I want one based on keywords, but somebody else wants one based on AI, and somebody else has a trusted person who they use as a filter. Maybe people could even have the job of being a professionally moderator for hire.

One way to do this would be for the sites to expose everything and the client browser filters it. Another would be for to create APIs that allow remote moderation. Really with REST-based web applications this is entirely feasible.

Slashdot kinda works like this. Friends get +1, enemies -1. We can set Funny, Interesting, Informative, Flamebait etc. to get a -1, +0, or +1. We can give a bonus to long comments, and we can set a threshold. So by selectively friending people I see slightly different view from you. But we are relying mostly on community moderation.

We are going to replace stupidity with automated stupidity. All these bad moderations will go into the training set. But then people will blame the AI instead of looking in the mirror and going "Hmm..... we trained the AI on ourselves.... and it is acting like an ass... what could this mean?"

It originally referred to the number of days between public disclosure or active exploitation in the wild, and the patch. If one defined it as defined the number of days between private discovery and the patch, then every vulnerability is a zero-day vulnerability and the term becomes useless.

And that's the trick they use. An iCloud backup tends to be under 5GB (barely), which is enough to fill the free tier. But it means you can't use iCloud for literally anything else, and it also doesn't include things like photos that are what people really want to back up.

Anything that's "stored on iCloud" is not in the phone backup. That includes photos, documents, game saves, and all sorts of information that people really want to keep backed up. It's also what prevents you from using any other cloud service: that data can't be saved to any other cloud storage site. Only iCloud. The data that isn't in the backup is what most users really want backed up: their photos, their messages, their contact list, their documents. Which means that, yes, the OP's wife almost certainly does need an expensive iCloud tier, because the "backup size" is only a tiny fraction of the real amount of data stored in iCloud.

Apple preventing Spotify from advertising their lower prices is just part of the way Apple attempts to push you over to Apple Music. I seem to recall a recent story about how Apple essentially forces you to buy iCloud storage space. Well, they also bundle that with Apple Music. Oh, you're out of space on iCloud? (You will be, since Apple has never increased the available space since launch, just added new and more expensive tiers.) Well, for a small monthly fee, you can get enough space to back up your phone and Apple Music.

Oh, you don't want to pay for iCloud? Well, I'll just constantly remind you that you're out of iCloud storage space until you relent just to shut up the messages.

That in addition to things always launching in Apple Music without any way to change it. Connect your iPhone to a Bluetooth speaker and Apple Music will launch. Press the "play" button on said speaker (or Bluetooth keyboard or the like) and Apple Music will launch. Connect to a car, and Apple Music will launch. Doesn't matter if you're doing something else at the time, even if it's using Apple's own Podcast app, iOS will always launch Apple Music and interrupt it.

Apple is an illegal monopoly and should be treated as such. They're also a trillion dollar company. A $2 billion fine is nothing. It needs to be much, much higher.

I notice that most of the people saying AI is not useful comes from people who start by saying "I tried it one time for something trivial and gave up."

Interesting opinion article about Stochastic parrots

I think everything you just said applies to human beings too.

The President is effectively the CEO of various agencies. This is because the laws that established the agencies said so. The president nominates the cabinet members who lead the agencies. As CEO, he can effectively fire people. An "executive order" is the equivalent of a CEO issuing a memo to the company. So using your examples:

The Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 passed by congress gives the USAID funding for Ukraine. I assume the USAID reports to the president. The bill stipulates that Ukraine combat corruption and promote democracy. The USAID, under the president's direction, must implement the aid that in accordance with the law. So, if the USAID, influenced by the President, decides that Ukraine is not doing those things, then USAID can hold-up the funding. Ultimately, that decision could be checked by the Supreme Court, by the voters, or by congress via impeachment.

If the president wanted to halt production of ICE cars, unless he was the CEO of a car company, he would have to find some legal or regulatory loophole. Like, maybe he or she could declare a state of emergency and take over the plants with the military. Perhaps he could instruct the head of the NHTSA to interpret regulation requiring all cars to have emergency shutdown systems. Some of these regulatory changes require public comment periods, or court oversight, or notification periods, etc. So it might take time. A creative president certainly could try stuff like that.

These kinds of questions come-up all the time. Some recent examples: Can the President forgive student loans? Can the president stop research on fetal stem cells? Can the president forbid people from entering the country? If so who, and from where?

There is so much wrong here I don't know where to start. I keep alternating between laughing and screaming.

From a product launch standpoint, it is like Google released a tool having never tested it. How could they have not known the responses it would produce? Especially given that almost every AI launch has had the same result? It's just negligence, then the CEO acts all surprised and indignant about it like it was someone else who did it. He might as well say "I am so appalled at my own lack of foresight into the obvious..."

Next up, people are surprised that training an AI in a biased world produces biased results. Duh! This one produced the biggest laugh for me:

Well geez, maybe that's because... that's how the world actually is??? We don't like it, we are trying to fix it, but this is not a criticism of AI, this is a criticism of society. If I put a mirror on a random street corner in New York, I bet people would complain that the mirror was biased.

But then it gets better: when the AI did the exact opposite, and made a black pope and black Vikings, THAT too was criticized! There's just no winning here! I really want the next pope to be black, just so that people will shut-up about this one.

This one is good too:

Here is the alleged dialog. LOL. The content isn't awful, it accurately describes the actions and influence of the two men, then just says "meh, it's hard to say!" Well, maybe we shouldn't be putting a newly invented technology at the helm of moral decisions yet.

How about this -- instead of creating guardrails on AI (which will never work because nobody can make guardrails that are acceptable to everyone), lets just laugh at it, watch it improve, and use it where it is applicable.

100% agreed. Either an industry group needs to start scanning and labeling devices like how UL does this for electronics, or the FTC needs to do it, or resellers like Amazon need to. Right now there is no transparency, accountability, or reportability.

How can an end-user protect themselves from stuff like this other than changing passwords and turning off the management interfaces? AFAIK they can't do much else. They can't scan their router to see if it is infected. Hopefully the devices self-update in a secure way, but I know in the past many of them didn't. Desktop antivirus tools won't scan remote devices so even if the device has a vulnerability, there isn't anything to tell the end-user.

The party of small government is at it again.