Society is not the governor of science. To become addicted, a chemical from outside of you must enter you, that causes the addiction. No chemical enters you via social media. You already have all of the chemicals, and your own actions cause the release of them. A society cannot officiate whether that is true.

They are made freely available to kids, just not by the manufacturer.

The very idea that an actual medical condition of diagnosis can be establish by a jury trial, is preposterous. One cannot become addicted to anything which does not physically put chemicals into you. No chemicals enter the body from social media; all of the relevant chemicals already exist within or otherwise apart from social media. Personal diligence governs release of said chemicals, and will not ever be reasonably concluded to have originated from social media, or video games, etc.

Now perhaps YouTube can stop issuing false copyright strikes when the claimant doesn't even have a valid claim to make. Loads of YouTube musicians get claims all the time on their original music, based on utterly fabricated claims from thin air, and all of the money instantly goes to the false claimer. Now that the service provider is not responsible, perhaps YT can stop being the arbiter of whose video contains whose media.

RIP also to all those little startups that use Sora to make ai video clips that popped up everywhere, especially the ones which offered lifetime access options..

Agreed; most of the political game from the conservative side, from having two Trump-voter parents (who praise him when prices are low, and then blame others when it is high) seem focused almost exclusively on taking especial pleasure in getting "libs" to show any emotion and essentially bathing in their tears. I am forced to listen to a lot of what I call AM hate radio (whereas my parents who listen to it feel it is a beacon of truth) when we go on long trips, easily 90% of it is ranting about basically how fun it is to make liberals squirm, and then nit picking every single out-of-context quote they can find is a sign of the broad pattern of how "the liberals" are actively trying to ruin the country.

It's like a cookie cutter format of every show: long rant about how the liberals are ruining everything, a random caller phones in with a long rant, the host and the caller agreeing about the libs trashing the place, how fun it is to see libs get their knickers bunched up about their plans being foiled, and then tons of paranoia-based advertising like prepper supplies for the holocaust. It is absolutely baffling how they don't see right through it.

I once borrowed the car from them while mine was in the shop, and the first ad that came up when the pre-tuned radio came on, was for a "kinetic gas canister" launcher, that doesn't require any permits to own or operate, so you can be prepared when your home is invaded. The literal demographic for the ad was people anticipating home invasion.

I think the problem with dynamic pricing will be a new industry spring up of dynamic buying, where someone who is able to buy it for less, will buy it for you, and their fee comes out of the difference, so that you'll still be paying less for the item overall, but they get a cut of the difference.

I didn't say the name was sensitive; it's the fact that (no matter what the name is) the name is being discussed publicly when it is reserved for internal usage.

> "unrelated to dynamic pricing"
except that both dynamic and pricing are in the patent description. Only those two things.

I guess everypony in the UK responsible for issuing the fines, didn't check their jurisdiction.

So the headline should instead read, "Human fails to double check AI answer leading to security incident" and it seems like a low key security breech to be posting the names of Meta's internal security alert names.

Home computers will be eventually deemed data centers by lawmakers who don't understand computers, and they will fall under the security protections required of those.

Your response to their response is similarly untoward.

The foremost reason behind my insistence to not see a film at the theatre, is because there are around 30 minutes of forced-watching ads before a movie now. I remember when videos that weren't movie trailers first began showing before a movie, and it felt out of place and wrong, that it did not belong there, especially since I am literally paying to watch the film. I don't mind trailers, because that is at least relevant to the movie experience, whereas being forced to watch a 7 minute car insurance ad is absolutely the wrong place.

The infiltration of forced ads being shown before movies, upwards of 30 minutes solid of just ads, makes the movie-going experience absolutely unacceptable.

I would like to see a company make overhauls optional, especially since a lot of tools developed by other companies which use Google Maps, would have to develop different systems to account for the new change. You just watch and see how many more people use the overhaul version than the previous version, to see descriptively whether that overhaul was a good idea, rather than whether some middle manager or hot new startup consultant that middle manager is sleeping with thinks an overhaul will perform.

If anything, make any new UI optional, so that old integrations will not be affected. For example, the 811 system, which has an integration with Google Maps in order for regular citizens to use the web to mark where they plan to dig so utilities can come mark existing underground lines, could make the 811 integrations mess up. I use 811 a lot, and even just changes like when Chrome started making its downloads go to the top instead of a row at the bottom, 811 had to completely redesign its training to account for that UI change, because their training still relied on "the download will appear at the bottom" when instead Chrome could have just made such a big UI change opt-in.