I suspect that Microsoft, not unreasonably, thinks that the value of their AI slop will be enhanced if they can use an existing property to get people to classify particularly grating AI slop so that they can tune their copilot-related stuff to produce less grating or less obvious slop in the future.

Maybe someone in the org actually cares about linkedin's reputation as a hellscape for aura-farming lunatics; but I'd be shocked if the incentive that MS is actually motivated by is anything but the chance to get a dataset of text ranked by how unpleasantly bot-like it is to try to make their bots less visible.

Looks like Microsoft is trying to convince people to classify more and less distasteful bot slop for them so they can tune copilot outputs in the future.

The winning move is not to play.

Once the supply of customers flush enough to buy under more standard arrangements is saturated you are basically left between ignoring the demand for growth forever or deciding between handling...subprime...customers yourself or keeping the arrangement at arm's length.

This 'restricted mode' that Apple is vigorously denying will be used for lease enforcement suggests that the metaphorical arm is not that long and that Apple seems to be doing more than merely being willing to sell devices to whatever resellers; but it's not a huge surprise that they'd want the risk related to the debt and any shaking down handled by someone who isn't them.

It's entirely possible that they didn't actually care that much. It seems at least as plausible that the sort of people who would risk this sort of legal exposure over a non-issue were more motivated by an excuse to throw weight around and talk like a mob boss than actual concern. Nice to be able to put a hobby project on the company card.

"The only solution" is in fact, not the "only" solution.

The correct and LEGAL means for the police to gain access to the phone is to take it and seal it in a tamperproof container (aka electronic Faraday Evidence Bag), go to a court and ask for a warrant to search the contents.

We have established LAW and procedures for the state to gain access to the device. It is inconvenient ON PURPOSE. and serves as a checks and balance in legal proceedings.

IF that is the case, seize the phone, get a Search Warrant.

The problem is, the state couldn't be bothered following ESTABLISHED law and procedures.

Simply accusing someone of some unspecified crime isn't a right the state has to just bypass Constitutional protections, namely the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Americans have rights, secured in our founding Constitution. I don't care what feelings one might have to the rest of the case. Rights exist, enshrined and we ought to defend them tirelessly forever.

There is some established case law that says that one cannot be compelled to give up a Password, Pin or Pattern Unlock, as a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment.

Those Amendments are key to a person's rights to be SECURE. Which is the key word here. He SECURED his rights, under duress, by refusing to comply.

THIS is separate from the police chasing him as a possible criminal for crimes I may or may not like.

Rights work by being the STARTING POINT, not an afterthought or worse, something the state can simply ignore in an attempt to prosecute people for potential criminal activity.

The state has legal remedies they ought to seek if they want access to secured personal property. We all know what that is. GET A WARRANT, which is almost always a rubber stamp (very easy bar to jump over). They couldn't even be bothered with that.

Everyone ought to understand, if we do not defend our rights, the state certainly won't.

I find it difficult to believe that 'influencers' are a good sign at a society level; but I'm a little puzzled by the degree of hostility to what is basically a degree for self-employed PR/marketing people.

As much as I'm not happy about it, PR and marketing are absolutely entire fields; and I'd assume that people doing those things whose client is themselves would also benefit from a dash of entertainment related law; contracts and accounting related to dealing with sponsor agreements; and the same sort of low-to-intermediate business stuff that routinely trips up musicians, artists, athletes, etc. who suddenly have some worthwhile amount of money/valuable copyrights/etc. but are either wholly dependent on 'agents' of variable quality and honesty or just end up getting screwed.

With the amount of whining I heard about how this version of the Odyssey was woke race treason engineered to poison western civilization I would have expected Elon to move faster than the copy cops when it showed up on his precious everything app. Is he developing a tolerance to the stimulants? Renting out datacenter space making grok sluggish?

Today I learned that 50k/year, in New York, is what Bloomberg considers "middle class".

Were they just hard up for anecdotes or is some sort of expectation management in effect?

I don't know if it's plain volume or some more subtle characteristic of the noise; but I'd suspect that there's more to it than noise alone; given how rare(and often slightly disconcerting in practice) genuinely silent environments are and would have been in evolutionary history.

Even in totally undeveloped areas where you and your little teeny band of hunter-gatherer pals are the only thing going the wind is always up to something; some combination of birds and insects will be doing their thing depending on temperature, if there's a body of water of any size or moving water you'll hear some flow or wave action.

Could be pure intensity; a lot of modern noise is quite intense close to its source; could also be something about how it is interpreted and how readily it is or isn't discarded as background vs. forcing some amount of constant active attention.

It's more about the type of leasing. Something like a corporate or educational IT lease happens without these sorts of features because the customer has particular preferences about opex vs. capex or depreciation or whatever; but that do actually have money. Apple already does that(not sure if directly or through distributors like CDW and SHI, or both).

Building some sort of MDM system that allows you to lock people out of certain apps in order to encourage them to pay up something this week is a different flavor of leasing; normally used on customers who are at the "deciding which bills go un or underpaid this time" level. Apple has, historically, not dabbled in this area.

To an extent they probably do; and may even be correct to do so; but what would concern me is the shift to hard technical enforcement when, in practice, Apple already does a fairly massive volume of contract-based leasing and other payment over time mechanisms. Fleet hardware sales, the financial structure of all the "free" with 2 year contract iphones that go out, etc.

If you are building all sorts of locks in, including ones for hassling the user rather than just keeping stuff from falling off a truck and getting parted out, there's a strong reason to suspect that you are looking to tap, um very subprime, credit risks who you'd never lease something with just a contract; or that (since the 'App managed features' seems to be aimed at 3rd party financiers/resellers) that you are dipping your toes into the really nasty, high-touch, "block tiktok until they scrape up a payment for a portion of a debt that would be hard to collect normally' end of the market. Same as the really really, unpleasant used car places that install remote immobilizers because they know that there are times when your need for your car will seem more urgent than your other bills.

It's absolutely not the the case that there's no money there; some outfits are quite successful at soaking the poor; but it's hard not to provoke questions about either what margins you are thinking about accepting in the future or how saturated the market is among the customers you'd really prefer by preparing to dive in to that end.

What are we going to use to handwave all the 'officer involved shootings' now that the claim that you feared for your life in the face of an imminent threat is no longer plausible? We can't really put these to work until we've decided on suitable legal cover!

I'm glad to see that we have moved past the era of 'bugs' or 'defects' and are now anthropomorphizing undesired behavior as 'honest mistakes'. Truly progress is glorious.