that would 100% be a firing offence.

Honestly, setting an AI you don’t control lose on your production database? Really? That’s just gross incompetence. This is code that a) wasn’t written or reviewed by a human, and b) code that wasn’t even tested on a development copy of the database.

Developers that do things like that are a liability. Unfortunately as “founder” he’ll likely just post something on LinkedIn about learning from his mistakes and “personal growth”, and that will be the end of it. Anyone else would have been shown the door to accelerate their “personal growth”.

Yaz

Maybe, just maybe there's a few million from the endowment Harvard has that can go to this? To tide over things like this rather than the brinkmanship and/or holding hostage decades of research when they have the money?

Or, better yet, your university can stop discriminating based on race on admissions! You know, follow the law and the Supreme Court! What a concept!

"The area that Google did well in that would not have happened had I not been distracted is Android, where it was a natural thing for me. I was trying, although what I didn't do well enough is provide the operating system for the phone. That was ours for the taking."

The antitrust case was overturned by the Appellate Court in 2001. The DOJ and Microsoft settled the outstanding portions in November 2001.

Android Inc. was started in 2003, and was four guys using pre-existing Open Source components to build an OS for mobile phones. Google bought them in 2005, and the first handset using Android was released in 2008.

Bill, you had seven years and the entire backing of a massive corporation (including all of its employees and intellectual property) after the antitrust case was settled, and couldn’t pull off what four guys started and Google finished in five using Open Source components.

Yaz

The solution is stupid. If search is the problem, then break up search. Like literally fragment the company into a bunch of copies of itself so it is forced to compete against itself. And invalidate all patents the company has so none of the "children" own those either. Have some other safeguards so they don't just form back together in 10 years (or 50, or whatever, see the "Baby Bells" and such).

Competition is what causes good things in Capitalism. Don't just take away the way they're abusing something (Chrome), or give geographic monopolies (see Baby Bells above) but fragment the company itself, so you re-introduce real competition. Similar with Microsoft: breakup should have meant two (or more) companies distributing competing versions of Windows, not Windows vs Office vs whatever.

Honestly that could be an interesting pre-remedy: if you are subject to an antitrust verdict (not accusation, but conviction), all of your patents are invalidated, and all license agreements you are engaged in (i.e. patent owned by employee, but exclusively licensed to the company) are terminated. Make them afraid of losing their IP profile forever.

Anyways, that's a bunch of things thrown at the wall. I doubt they'll do any. But breaking off monopolistic pieces from the whole isn't the solution. Getting former parts of the company to compete in the same spaces is the problem.

Assuming I even agreed, why would the UN be considered a trustworthy body for this? Right now, at this moment on the UN Human Rights Council are China, Cuba, and at least a few other places with "questionable" practices.

The UN is a dictator's club. Democratic (or even close-ish) countries should separate from it. They have nothing resembling ethics or morals by any standard I would recognize. It's a farce, and while good people work there for some good purposes, it offers a veneer of legitimacy to many MANY horrific acts.

And it's undemocratic in the extreme (assuming that's an ideal). No representation by population.