Yup, that’s part of the deal: cat shit is preferable over elephant shit. The other part is that cat shit is still shit, and it’s still undesirable.

Now look at the discussion in this thread. Gabe Newell is cat shit; some comments are trying to defend him as not shit, some trying to pretend his behaviour is exactly as bad as elephant shit (your typical billionaire). Between a billionaire like Newell spending money on a research yacht versus one like Musk fuelling some random dictatorship, Newell is preferable. And he’s still undesirable as any of those money-hoarding psychopaths.

Elephant shit for you then :)
(just kidding.)

I am talking about the sort of everyday interaction that would make a 5yo get scolded for not being nice. This is clear by context.

Her 5yo got it right.

By default you should be nice to people. Care about their needs, avoid offending them (and if you do, apologise), avoid unnecessary lies, all that thing. And since most people are surprisingly reasonable, they’ll do the same towards you.

However. There’s always “that” arsehole, petty, assumptive person. No matter how nice you are towards them, they won’t be nice to you. Don’t be nice to them - even if on the outside it’s irrelevant, it’ll eat you from the inside and make you feel like shit. Or, like she said, “hurt your energies”.

Most comments ITT boil down to two things:

• “cat shit is shit, so it’s the same as elephant shit”
• “cat shit is not the same as elephant shit, so it’s not shit”

They’re best used alongside a hopper filter system. Just to handle unstackables.

Build an auto-sorter, so you can put it in a chest full of random junk, and it’ll output it into labelled chests.

Ah, the struggles of the prolabubutariat…

Before I even read the article, let me guess:

1. it keeps Google under control of everything, giving it power to kick out competitors on a whim
2. it claims it’s “to protect those disgusting pieces of shit called users from causing themselves harm”
3. it claims Google did nothing wrong

Now, reading the article…

• “Google has denied any wrongdoing throughout the closely watched litigation.” - that’s #3 right off the bat
• “Under the new proposal, Google would allow users to more easily download and install third-party app stores that meet new security and safety standards.” - who decides those standards? If Google itself, that’s #1
• Sameer Samat, Google’s president of Android Ecosystem, said, opens new tab on Tuesday the proposed changes maintained user safety - #2.

*Yawn*

Yeah, the terminology is currently a mess. Not just due to language changes, but also synchronic variation - different people using the same words for different meanings, at the same time. But for me, it’s a mix of motivations, methods, and morality:

• hacker strictu sensu - like a kid who dismantles toys to see how they work. Sometimes they break things, but they want knowledge the most. Usually grey hat, sometimes white hat, only rarely black hat
• cracker - like a kid who bashes toys with a hammer. Not interested on the knowledge itself, except when it allows them to bully other kids. Almost always black hat.

Raccoon
RACOON PLEASE
WHAT ARE YOU DOING
We’re mammals you silly. We don’t go through carcinisation, we evolve into anteaters.

It’s more than that: they’d need to have desires, aversions, goals. That is not automatically granted by intelligence; in our case it’s from our instincts as animals. So perhaps you’d need to actually evolve Darwin style the AGI systems you develop, and that would be way more massive than a single AGI, let alone the “put glue on pizza lol” systems we’re frying the planet for.

My guess:

Coverage roughly follows money, and that money comes the top of the hierarchy. However, the top is too far from the production to actually get that 1) automation is nothing new, and 2) AI won’t help as much with it as advertised.

The middle of the hierarchy is close enough to the production to know those two things, but it’ll parrot them because doing so enables the inefficiency they love so much, under the disguise of efficiency.

Then you got the bottom. It’s the closest to the production, but often suffers from a problem of “I don’t see the forest, I see the leaves”, plus since it has no decision power so it ends as a “meh who cares”. So it’ll parrot whatever it sees in the coverage.

As such, who’s actually going to get screwed here? The answer may surprise you.

All three. However not in the way people predict, “AI is going to steal our jobs”. It’s more like suckers at the top will lose big money on AI fluff, and to cut costs off they’ll fire a lot of people.

Setting aside “and how will it do that?” as outside the scope of the topic at hand, it’s a bit baffling to me how a nebulous concept prone to outright errors is an existential threat. (To be clear, I think the energy and water impacts are.)

Ditto.

Interestingly enough, not even making them actually intelligent would be enough to make them liable - because you can’t punish or reward them.

More like an Autumn/Spring thing than a Summer one, but…

If you live in a place where temperature varies a lot across the day, you’ll want to wear a jacket at some hours, but not others. Then you need to choose between three options:

1. Wear the jacket through the day. You’ll feel hot at ~noon.
2. Don’t bother with the jacket. You’ll feel cold at ~early morning and ~early night.
3. Take off the jacket at ~noon. Now you’re carrying (and potentially forgetting) yet another item.

All three suck. But people disagree which one sucks the least, and for some it’s #1. So you get people wearing jackets even when it’s too hot for that.

…gimme five bags of that, please.

No problem - miscommunication happens.

Yes, this should be illegal, but it’s already common practice. I’m just hoping that enough of this will eventually get people to stop buying these products, and hopefully we can start seeing some real legislation against it in some countries.

Problem is, people won’t stop buying them. Often “smart” products are sold comparatively cheaper, because the business expects additional profits through ads; and if Samsung is going this way (ads on your fridge), it’ll do it.

The “crackers” part of this confuses me. Samsung is a Korean company. The chairman’s name is Lee Jae-yong (이재용). Samsung NA’s CEO is Yoonie Joung. Maybe I’m misreading this?

By “crackers” I mean “black hat hackers”. The sort of people who’d love to drop some ransomware into your fridge and then say “if you don’t want me to brick your fridge, pay me a few bucks”.

(After some websearch, apparently Americans use it as a derogatory term. I wasn’t aware of that.)

However, Samsung is giving users the option to turn off ads.

For now, like the author herself mentions later on (“The bigger issue is that of trust. […] that’s today.”)

[Higby] “This pilot further explores how a connected appliance can deliver genuinely useful, contextual information. The refrigerator is already a daily hub, and we’re testing a responsible, user-controlled way to make that space more helpful.”

What Shane Higby is saying here boils down to “we’re trying to help the user”. But if he said so, in clear words, every bloody body would call it bullshit, because it’s common knowledge companies smear ads on your face for their own sake - not yours. But if you hide it behind fancy words, like “further explores” and “deliver” and the likes, it’s harder to call the bullshit.

I’m getting real tired of this shit.

[Higby] "…future promotions will depend on the feedback and insights gained from the program.”

Translation: “we’re just testing the waters now. Let’s see if the suckers swallow it or spit it.”

This is similar to the justification Panos Panay, Amazon’s […] He said it was looking to be “elegantly elevating the information that a customer needs.”

Emphasis mine. You can always trust Amazon in one thing: belittling the user.

The problem here isn’t just the ads themselves (although they are a problem); it’s that they are being added to the device after it’s in my home.

[Warning, IANAL.] Fight this shit. Seriously, fight it. On legal grounds. What they’re doing should be outright illegal in most countries; it’s equivalent to changing a contract unilaterally after both parties signed it.

Additionally, I’d strongly advise against buying any sort of “smart” device, unless you’re pretty sure the benefits of connecting your toaster to the internet outweighs all the risks. Including corporations and crackers taking control of it, harvesting your data, spamming you, building kill switches into it, etc.

This was fucking hilarious! I’ll never play the game but hey, entertaining let’s play.