Mastodon COULD be fine, if it had better discovery systems, and anyone at all used it.

X is now cesspool of alt-right toxic hate, intermixed with silicon valley AI tech bros, and politicians and clueless legacy media folks. Those are the only groups who still use it.

Meanwhile, Threads is just full of people who like to argue about random crap.

BlueSky is like X, but the opposite... it is alt-left toxic hate and mind-numbing social justice warriors who wont just chill out.

Most people who use social media, the 99%, don't want any of this. They just want to relax and chill and talk about fun things. That is what "old twitter" used to be, and it no longer exists, in any of these networks.

Yes but thats no bearing at all on the shares Ellison owned.

3 people A, B, and C own 1 share of a company valued at $10 per share, total market cap of the company is $30.

A decides to sell his share to B for $20. Each share is now valued at $20, so total market cap of the company is $60..

C was not involved in that transaction at all, but his shares doubled in value from $10 to $20. ON PAPER. He never transacted at all.

This is how the stock market works, at a much higher scale It is also why the idea of taxing unrealized gains is stupid. You're taxing money that doesn't actually exist. The real problem (and thing that needs to be dealt with) is people using unrealized gains to secure loans.

Great! But the lawsuits and regulations need to stop naming "Meta glasses" and be widened to cover ANY AND ALL recording without consent.

Laws and regulations need to be put into place on recording in public and what is allowed to be done with those recordings without consent. It's that simple. The concepts of privacy and consent that we have relied on as a society for the past few hundred years were not built to withstand the type of technology that is available today.

If you record in public without consent, the only thing you should be allowed to do with that video is maintain it in private and use it for security or investigative purposes for a fixed time window. Any other use should be prohibited, and yes that this includes use by the media.

If we want to let the media go around and record anyone they want without consent then you should have to get some kind of a license or pass some kind of a minimum bar that is invented because what's going on right now is just not OK.

There are HUNDREDS of brands of camera smart glasses on the market, most of them WITHOUT recording lights.

There are also THOUSANDS of types of OTHER wearable cameras, in every form factor you can think of - pins, pendants, buttons, you name it.

These things have existed FOR YEARS.

THIS IS NOT NEW TECHNOLOGY.

Shareholders have this odd habit of wanting their CEO to do things that increase the profitability of the company. Given how many businesses are fleeing the anti-business climate of California for Florida, Texas, and other business-friendly states -- and thriving in those new states -- they might just give him a raise.

And yet, with all that economy, they still can't make budget

One could be forgiven for saying they can't afford to lose a single dollar of potential tax revenue.

There is no right for a "first incident" grace because this is potentially happening to thousands of people and if they all just accept an apology for the "first incident" then Flock keeps getting away with it. Sue immediately.

She should not accept an apology. She has to sue, both the department as well as Flock.

The only thing that will end this is consequences for the department and Flock.

Go talk to a lawyer they eat stuff like this up.

Two problems with your statements

First problem: Waymos have been driving on highways for a long time.

Second, is you are looking at the data totally wrong. To be better than human drivers, all any *individual* Waymo driver has to have is more miles than *the average individual driver* - and that number is already passed by tens-of-thousands.

The "number of trips that happen in a single day" is not relevant whatsoever as a safety metric.

I suspect the Pareto Principle is very much at play here, in that 80% of customer issues can totally be answered by the scripts that human front-line call centre staff typically worked from (that's why the scripts exist in the first place, afterall), and therefore 80% of the calls can be dealt with perfectly well by an AI bot following the same script. It's only the other 20% that are the unique problems that KB articles and scripted/automated agents cannot handle, and - usually after a lot of pointless tick-boxing to get off-script - those are usually the ones that get escalated to a second line support peon that can actually take some initiative, and ultimately the few real corner cases to third-line support.

If AI can let you cull 80% of your support / call centre staff with no practical loss of service (according to the AI agent salesperson, anyway), then who isn't going to jump at that? Of course, they'll probably go for 90% or more and take extra hit on service levels, then have to wind things back a bit when they realise that the AI agents are not quite as good as promised and some people will get really stroppy about being forced to talk a bot, but at that point they'll have been paid their bonus and who cares, right? They're only customers, and you've got think of the shareholders!

AlphaFold 3 is being developed by Isomorphic Labs, a different Alphabet subsidiary. The fact that it is no longer being developed by DeepMind is irrelevant to both the project and the world.

IE, this story is just bogus and poorly researched. There isn't much more to say about it.

Yep - and the taxpayers will pay millions, and the idiots responsible continue in their jobs.

Which is why, as many people pointed out at the time the root servers were opened up to all these new gTLDs, that this is just a license for the successful registrars running each gTLD to print money at the expense of everyone with a brand they have to protect. In most cases, they were absolutely right on the money; .biz being the classic example, almost immediately becoming a wretched hive of online scum and villainy most mail server operators equally rapidly blocked outright. (I am curious though; does anyone actually try and host a legit .biz domain these days? I don't think I've ever come across one.)

I'll give you, there are some pretty cool options for host/domain names under .web, especially with an arachnid theme or things like "web.web.web", that might become useful and popular for some groups, but apart from those - which Verisign, being Verisign, will no doubt have a special procurement process for to maximise their investment - the rest will almost certainly be parked/redirected brandname protection, a vast number of of scammer sites, and a handful of vanity projects that 99.99% of people probably won't even know about, and probably wouldn't care about if they did.

None of which changes the fundamental point that we seldom care about URLs any more. We click on links in apps, webpages, emails, etc., ideally having done some kind of due diligence to make sure the link is hopefully OK, or just cut and paste from the browser bar to put it into something we are writing. Functionally, "bankofamerica.com" is no different from "bankofamerica.web", or any other gTLD/ccTLD they might care to suffix it with, and it wouldn't make any difference to their service if all the other TLDs went away, unless they wanted to do some kind of content localisation based on a ccTLD rather than some other approach to achieve that.