And when a company doesn't say they won't share personal information, they share it.

In other words, any company you give personal information to will share it. Whether they say they will or not is irrelevant.

And in other news, the sky is blue, water is wet, and politicians lie.

Why comment the ads out? Include the pulling and display of ads as part of every program.

If I understand correctly, you can have GitHub do the compile for you as well, so there's not need to bother the programmer with details like including their spamware code in the source code they see.

And once they've proven that the automated compile is more efficient than doing it yourself, why even have the option to do it manually?

You know that's the end game. And you know they're planning to do that in any complier Microsoft has any control over, as well.

It's for your own good, after all.

Will it cause collateral damage, or will it end (at least some of) it?

Does social media do anything but collateral damage?

It's been tried. Didn't work out so well.

Rubbish. It's doing what it's programmed to do. The goal is for the AI to have complete, 100% control of the computer, to the exclusion of any human input. The tech bros want us to believe this is a good thing, that it will automate your life and make it easier, but they don't believe that either. It's about control.

They intend to make AI the 21st century form of slavery, where you are their literal property.

Some people (and I use the term loosely) don't see The Matrix as dystopian.

As an irrelevant side not, the producers of Sesame Street did issue a formal statement on the subject:

"They're puppets and puppets don't have a sexual orientation."

You have established that you're a pervert loser already, you can stop shouting it from the rooftops.

And you've admitted I'm right. You would show me, if only you had any.

There's a difference?

And if you don't, Microsoft's games aren't the problem.

It's not that it's not cost effective over time so much as the up front cost in one big bite. It would literally double the cost of opening a new store for us, is not more.

Then I guess we should burn the store to the ground and all go live in a cave and hunt dinner (or each other) with sharp sticks.

And dead batteries aren't a problem with the digital tags, they're a problem with managers who don't maintain their store competently. The managers who don't check for dead tags for 5 years (which is how long the batteries tend to last, since e-ink only uses power while you change the display) also won't check for outdated paper tags for that long, by which time they will have faded to the point of not being readable anyway.

Nonsense. This is about eliminating, in a Walmart, hundreds of man-hours of wages changing hundreds, if not thousands of paper tags every week. Any amount they could possibly make from dynamic pricing (even not counting the fines when someone is charged more at the register than they saw on the shelf) pales in comparison that being able to change every price in the store with a couple of mouse clicks.

Changing pricing during business hours is insanely stupid, since it leads to serious legal problems.

As opposed to a paper label in the same forgotten area that's years out of date and so faded you can't read it anyway? Or sale signs that nobody remembered to take down when the sale ended?

Lack of maintaining the store isn't a problem with digital labels, it's a problem with lazy, incompetent management.

Yeah, but that's true whether the tag gets moved or not. People don't read flashing neon signs bigger than they are that they have to walk around to come in the door, they certainly don't read tiny bin labels.

The biggest downside is the cost. Our stores have 40,000-60,000 items each, and those tags cost $5-20 apiece. That's hundreds of thousands to over a million dollars per store in initial investment. That's comparable to the cost of merchandise to open a new store.