Comment Re: You're shitting me! (Score 1) 110
Why would they need a warrant? Flock consents to their customers accessing Flock's data.
[various anticipated objections] Yes, but this is in America.
Why would they need a warrant? Flock consents to their customers accessing Flock's data.
[various anticipated objections] Yes, but this is in America.
So many Hollywood scriptwriters who lazily decided, "I'll just use Nazis for the bad guys, they're universally-recognized evergreen enemies," are facepalming these days.
(I'm just speculating.) People don't need help with selling fun things; they want a 'bot that can sell the crap which humans have given up on. Anthropic doesn't want to sell widgets; they want to sell stores which sell widgets (sort of like selling pickaxes instead of getting into mining).
Maybe the problem it has been asked to solve is "I have some crap that nobody wants. Sell it."
This story (and the one in December it links to) is telling me the proper use of AI is to be abused, drawing fire away from humans.
I thought "Mommy Has Four Graphics Cards" was pretty good, but "Not Everyone Computes" did a great job of explaining why the industry is largely about remote services rather than running it locally.
Let me know when all this heart rate monitoring can do loss-of-pulse detection and call emergency services if I have a heart attack.
I can't tell whether that's a joke, but the Google Pixel 3 smart watch has "recently" (June, 2025) received FDA clearance for "loss of pulse" feature. Seems like there would be a lot of false positives if the watch is either too tight or not tight enough, but maybe not.
Not a joke. I'm aware of that feature, and that's why I said it. No idea about false positives.
No, it does not. Maybe you're thinking of Pixel Watch?
Let me know when all this heart rate monitoring can do loss-of-pulse detection and call emergency services if I have a heart attack. That's worth paying for. Having slightly more frequent heart rate monitoring? Don't care. Not even a little.
I am not decided if that's a bad thing compared to sacrificing legions of young poor men, and historically it mostly has been young poor men, sorry feminists.
Any feminist can tell you that the toxic extreme masculinity being used to brainwash young poor men into dying for their country's rich people is what we're trying to get rid of.
Sex equality is a net positive for people from all genders.
This is just too fucking hilarious. If I ask Google for "European search engines" the very first link [after the "AI overview"] is literally that page.
If any Europeans are saying they have to use Google because they don't know about the European search engines, it's because they have never looked for European search engines. The very words are the key to the solution. Google it, Europeans, and then you can be free of Google! Google just one final time.
The problem here is that when you turned on the TV for the first time and clicked the 'I accept' button, you agreed to the recording, and probably agreed that you'd be responsible for letting anybody else who might be in range of the TV know that they're subject to recording.
Is that going to hold up in court? Who knows, but can you afford to spend the money to find out? Somebody eventually will, and you'll get a coupon for twenty bucks off of a new TV as the settlement.
It's a for profit business, how much control can even the Aussie Nannie state want. Unless they can prove that curating the feed is "harmful" shouldn't the customers decide what they want by voting with their $$$/Presence?
Here's the flaw in your logic. The vast majority of their customers WANT to turn this s**t off. But they put up with it up to a point or they don't. Either way, it doesn't matter as long as there are enough people who are engagement junkies who eat it up and therefore drive up ad impressions. They could lose 90% of their users, and if the other 10% increase their usage 10x, they're still ahead...
... but while the company may be ahead in that situation, society is still harmed by the other 90% not having access to a usable service. And of course, not all of those 90% will jump ship. Many will suffer silently while being harassed relentlessly by garbage posts by creators that they think you'll "enjoy".
I wholeheartedly agree that while algorithmic feeds are fine, there MUST be an opt out, and it cannot be like Facebook's "Most Recent" sort that disappears on its own every week or so. No matter how many times you tell them what they want, they shovel whatever s**t they want. It has reached the point where I almost never go on there anymore, because instead of being able to interact with the contents from my friends and groups that I follow, I'm constantly getting bombarded with mostly garbage posts and ads, with less than a 1:10 signal-to-noise ratio.
Please force them to do this, and to all the other governments of the world, please do likewise.
Patents. And AI can't be the inventor for patents, so by doing this, they're potentially dropping a huge land mine on patentability of genetics research. It's kind of awesome, at least from an "our genes are not for sale" perspective.
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.