Perhaps more troublingly; they'll allow facebook to see what the people you see do.

My good-faith advice to anyone who is considering letting zuck into their refrigerator just to solve the crushing problem of what to cook with available ingredients or whatever would be "probably not worth it"; but that's ultimately a them problem one way or the other.

The trouble is that much of the pitch here is that you are supposed to provide footage as you wander around; merrily making the you problem everyone else's problem as you do so. And, yes, 'no expectation of privacy, etc, etc.' but there's a fairly obvious distinction between "in principle, it wouldn't be illegal to hire a PI to follow you around with a camera while you are in public", which involves a typically prohibitive cost in practice and "you paid them to upload geolocated footage, nice going asshole", where the economics of surveillance change pretty radically.

If people want to outource their thinking to facebook themselves I'd have to be feeling fairly paternalistic to intervene; but given that the normalization of these is, pretty explicitly, about facebook having eyes on everyone I can only hope that 'glasshole' continues to be a genuine social risk to any adopters.

Factually, it is something being done to counter racism. But racists like you are allergic to facts.

He said a lot of stupid shit but not many of us are racist enough to latch onto it and make it part of our identities.

Anyone who puts their money behind wildfire smoke as the leading public health threat of 2050 is just showing their abject lack of faith in the potential of malice and incompetence. Who are these faithless degenerates to tell us that we can't re-introduce enough trivially controllable infectious diseases or deregulate enough toxin smelters to outmatch some trees?

Sorry if I wasn't clear; that's the part I have deep concerns about getting done. My impression has been that(while, in theory, people are supposed to be averse to spending money) it's much easier to get funding for novel or sexy initiatives, especially if they promise to be magic-bullet solutions, than it is to push through money for boring stuff, even if it's low risk and abundantly proven; and the risk these recommendations address seems to sit firmly on the unfavorable side of that.

"We need to do a bunch of fiddly changes to eliminate quirks of build reproducibility, and generally have more eyes on important software" is not a terribly intimidating project in terms of novelty or risk; but "basically, just spend more on reasonably competent, reasonably diligent, software engineers than it seems like you strictly need to, in order to make improvements that outside observers could easily mistake for status quo, forever" is a deeply unsexy project. It's a much better project than "Agentic digital transformation" or something; but that's the sort of likely failure that someone looking to spend company money to look like a thought leader on linkedin will practically trample you in their eagerness to approve.

As best I can tell; most of the complaining about freeloaders is sideshow in the battle over who deserves subsidies, not objections in principle. I'm less clear on whether there's also a positive correlation between whining about the subsidies going to people who aren't you and actively seeking them yourself; or whether the cases of people who do both are disproportionately irksome and so appear more common than a dispassionate analysis of the numbers would reveal them to be.

Oh look, whoever you are. Nobody knows you.

And American cars were still shit. If you RTFA I linked you'll see that the best of the 90s and 2000s were not what was destroyed.

Now go off to cry to someone else about your tiny penis, you will not be missed.

Mostly the ACK and concurrence, though I noticed and regret my typo of "there" where I meant "their".

Mod parent Funny but actually too true to be funny.

However I have a new theory about moderation on Slashdot. First you have to pass a reverse CAPTCHA test. The mod points are then only given to accounts that can prove they are not human.

On the story itself, I think we are all so fscked that it doesn't even make sense to think about solution approaches. The giant corporate cancers can always find a suitable jurisdiction where they they fsck you if'n they want to.

However it would reach a new level of Funny if she has never even visited jolly ol' England.

All the moderators missed the joke and failed to give you a Funny?

Or perhaps all the moderators are AI? Slashdot's new (and secret) moderation policy is to only give mod points to accounts that can pass a reverse CATPCHA to prove they are NOT human?

Just asking questions? Of course not?!?

Mod parent funny, but what I was looking for in the discussion was some deeper considerations of the corruption of copyright law... So far it seems to be a rather shallow discussion.

I could check again tomorrow, except that Slashdot discussions always effectively expire by tomorrow...

Mod parent Funny, but I think the humor is at a level that will sail over the moderators' heads. Assuming they have heads and Slashdot hasn't adopted a policy of giving all the mod points to AI accounts. Slashdot could use a reverse CAPTCHA where you have to prove you're not human before you can have any mod points to bestow.

For my next failure to be funny, consider the threat of learning not to think like a machine by learning not to think about any question the machine won't answer. Combination of "Nothing to see there" and "How dare you even think of such a question?" And I predict most people won't even notice the "guidance" of their "thinking".

Would have been a better FP, and I can even see a derivative joke:

"But first they use the AI to decide which stuff is "confidential and important" and that stuff is not shown to the contractors, but only moderated by "politically reliable" insiders. (Yes, the double entendre is deliberate. But I bet some folks around here won't even see it.)

While I want Funny, I don't get the joke. Care to clarify?

(Charitable assumption is that you were going for FP but the time pressure got to you.)

Two counts of nothing. First the AC count. FP was just another AC brain fart. NOT a case where anonymity is justified. That would be if someone on the inside wanted to provide some interesting information on the terminations. In this case that would be someone inside cancerous google or Hitachi.

Other count of "nothing to see here" is the Japanese news. At least if it had been a featured story on NHK then I would have noticed it. Possible it will break today, and if that happens I should thank Slashdot for calling it to my attention. (Long time ago Slashdot was often a significant source of early news. Pretty sure the first I heard of one major divestiture by my employer was via Slashdot.)

So now I'm not only standing by, I may even peek at some of the news magazines searching for more... Right now I'm going with the hypothesis is that this story is sort of bad news for Japan but they (specifically NHK) haven't figured out what angle they want to use in reporting on it. Mustn't offend the YOB, you know.