It has a "percentage match" system that suggests titles based on previous ones you've watched, after all, so there's probably very little incentive for the platform to keep the reviews section running.
Which of course doesn't work very well because Netflix didn't consider the fact the user stopped the video after 15 minutes and has no way to indicate they didn't like the movie
If you don't mind me asking, why exactly do you people do that? Repeat exactly what was said up front as if you were pointing out something new?
Because it wasn't pointed out in the article on Slashdot, it was classic Silicon Valley press cheerleading how great an achievement it was, aligning 100% with the press releases written by OpenAI
I mean if you go watch the match, the opening commentary has the developers saying all of those things over and over and over again along with explanations why.
Why would anyone watch a company's masturbation about how great they are for 3-5 hours?
Then you "point it out" as if it wasn't stated before the games multiple times, during the games, and more times after the games.
No, we "point out" that the article and summary on Slashdot is a misleading jerk-off session and explained the reality of the story. Just like I'm going to "point out" that you're an apologist for bad writing and press cheerleading.
I expect AT&T has some sort of terms of service that limits or disclaims their liability. I similar problem is if you place valuable items in your luggage the airline has a fixed amount they will cover.
In the modern world there is effectively no chance that any device shipped will not ship with a vulnerability. This isn't a statement on software or hardware development merely that given the time it takes to ship goods and that we perpetually find issues across the entire stack of software and hardware having a device land in your hands without a day-0 patch (or perhaps the device will never be patched despite this) is never happen.
It wouldn't surprise me if carrier crapware is particularly poorly written and maintained however.
Ah yes, the stereotypical right-wing attacks on experts who have data and know what they're talking about.
I sometimes wonder how many of these ACs actually believe the nonsense they spout or whether they're some loser sitting at a desk in China or Russia being paid peanuts
but with blockchain! Consumers loooove needing to buy chunks of some fake currency and doing arithmetic to figure out just how much that thing they want to buy actually costs.
If you're going down that road, how can you trust source code? It might be different than what is deployed to devices. Heck, maybe its in firmware somewhere....
It should be noted that the bots are cheating and have a different level of access to the information in the game that players do not have. e.g. they have no need to select players to know inventories, precise health, mana etc. In addition to perfect possible information they also have perfect control input.
They also make a big point about how the draft is considered to be one of the more difficult parts of dota and how impressive it is their bots can draft... but restrict the pool from the normal 115 to 18 and eliminate bans rendering it entirely unlike dota drafting. They also restricted 2 items, no summons/illusions, 5 invulnerable couriers (instead of a team having 1, which can be killed) and no scanning (a time-limited radar like ability).
Don't get suckered into the news hype cycle until the bots use a screen with USB input and play the actual game instead of an arbitrary one.
For me the opposite would have been true. I've always been a slow writer and in university before I had a laptop taking notes I'd fall far enough behind that the board I was trying to copy would get erased.
Also, giving back the money is hardly an option. I doubt very much that there was a line in the contract allowing for backsies.
Its not about taking whatsapp back from FB, they claim to be morally outraged while sitting in the palaces that selling out bought. Give the money to charities, then they can complain.
The problem here is that FB was foolish enough to buy a service like WhatsApp without having a viable strategy for making money. The people using WhatsApp are doing so in part with the knowledge that there doesn't appear to be any snooping going on. Adding ads to the service would pretty much destroy that reason for using it, at which point there's numerous other possibilities, some of which already have traction.
Its the typical silicon valley process: 1) Get Users 2) ??? 3) Profit. I guess in Facebooks defense we all thought they were insane for buying Instagram for $1-billion.
Do they proactively disclose it upfront? Or do they bury this in the EULA?
I've said this before on similar topics, we need laws around the reasonable expectations of the average user. The normal expectations of buying a concert ticket do not include being doxxed.
8) Never, ever incorporate popular extensions into the core product for efficiency. Blocking ads and better security should be the end users task to learn about, decide, and implement. If you *must* implement something like the "do not track" button, be sure to be extremely careful not to piss off advertizers: implement it by default "off", so that users can choose.
Unset was actually the required default state in the DNT spec, when Microsoft decided to violate it there was a lot of discussion about how it would be valid for advertisers to ignore DNT for IE users. (Microsoft later changed IE to require the user to change the setting).
Just because you have name recognition with Firefox doesn't mean you should try to slap that name on every product you produce. Product awareness isn't transitive, confusion however is. I work for a company that did this, years later internally everyone still refers to the OG product with the now overarching brand, and externally customers are confused often not understanding what part of the brand they've bought. Obviously I won't name my employer but a public example might be how Microsoft used to stamp Windows on everything.
I'll go out on a limb here..... items actually sold by Amazon have low rate of fake reviews any items not sold by Amazon proper are probably a dumpster.
Actually, I should also say this is why most tech workers believe they are underpaid as they know of people in silicon valley earning twice or more their salary.
Slashdot Mirror
Google's terms do have this exclusion:
Payment is for digital content that may be consumed outside of the app itself (e.g. songs that can be played on other music players).
Netflix probably falls under this exemption
A podcast I listened to last week mention he uploaded a video with a non-apology apology that he eventually took down.
It has a "percentage match" system that suggests titles based on previous ones you've watched, after all, so there's probably very little incentive for the platform to keep the reviews section running.
Which of course doesn't work very well because Netflix didn't consider the fact the user stopped the video after 15 minutes and has no way to indicate they didn't like the movie
Blacklists are illegal.
If you don't mind me asking, why exactly do you people do that? Repeat exactly what was said up front as if you were pointing out something new?
Because it wasn't pointed out in the article on Slashdot, it was classic Silicon Valley press cheerleading how great an achievement it was, aligning 100% with the press releases written by OpenAI
I mean if you go watch the match, the opening commentary has the developers saying all of those things over and over and over again along with explanations why.
Why would anyone watch a company's masturbation about how great they are for 3-5 hours?
Then you "point it out" as if it wasn't stated before the games multiple times, during the games, and more times after the games.
No, we "point out" that the article and summary on Slashdot is a misleading jerk-off session and explained the reality of the story. Just like I'm going to "point out" that you're an apologist for bad writing and press cheerleading.
what many of us pointed out in the comments when the story originally ran here on /.
Remember how the USB floppy drive was the most popular peripheral for a long ass time?
Calling out cellphones seems questionable, it isn't like parents didn't have many distractions in the past they took to the beach.
I expect AT&T has some sort of terms of service that limits or disclaims their liability. I similar problem is if you place valuable items in your luggage the airline has a fixed amount they will cover.
In the modern world there is effectively no chance that any device shipped will not ship with a vulnerability. This isn't a statement on software or hardware development merely that given the time it takes to ship goods and that we perpetually find issues across the entire stack of software and hardware having a device land in your hands without a day-0 patch (or perhaps the device will never be patched despite this) is never happen.
It wouldn't surprise me if carrier crapware is particularly poorly written and maintained however.
Ah yes, the stereotypical right-wing attacks on experts who have data and know what they're talking about.
I sometimes wonder how many of these ACs actually believe the nonsense they spout or whether they're some loser sitting at a desk in China or Russia being paid peanuts
which even includes GPS...
but with blockchain! Consumers loooove needing to buy chunks of some fake currency and doing arithmetic to figure out just how much that thing they want to buy actually costs.
If you're going down that road, how can you trust source code? It might be different than what is deployed to devices. Heck, maybe its in firmware somewhere....
It should be noted that the bots are cheating and have a different level of access to the information in the game that players do not have. e.g. they have no need to select players to know inventories, precise health, mana etc. In addition to perfect possible information they also have perfect control input.
They also make a big point about how the draft is considered to be one of the more difficult parts of dota and how impressive it is their bots can draft... but restrict the pool from the normal 115 to 18 and eliminate bans rendering it entirely unlike dota drafting. They also restricted 2 items, no summons/illusions, 5 invulnerable couriers (instead of a team having 1, which can be killed) and no scanning (a time-limited radar like ability).
Don't get suckered into the news hype cycle until the bots use a screen with USB input and play the actual game instead of an arbitrary one.
I'm not sure one can call proprietary tech like Qualcomm's QuickCharge a standard.
For me the opposite would have been true. I've always been a slow writer and in university before I had a laptop taking notes I'd fall far enough behind that the board I was trying to copy would get erased.
Also, giving back the money is hardly an option. I doubt very much that there was a line in the contract allowing for backsies.
Its not about taking whatsapp back from FB, they claim to be morally outraged while sitting in the palaces that selling out bought. Give the money to charities, then they can complain.
The problem here is that FB was foolish enough to buy a service like WhatsApp without having a viable strategy for making money. The people using WhatsApp are doing so in part with the knowledge that there doesn't appear to be any snooping going on. Adding ads to the service would pretty much destroy that reason for using it, at which point there's numerous other possibilities, some of which already have traction.
Its the typical silicon valley process: 1) Get Users 2) ??? 3) Profit. I guess in Facebooks defense we all thought they were insane for buying Instagram for $1-billion.
Do they proactively disclose it upfront? Or do they bury this in the EULA?
I've said this before on similar topics, we need laws around the reasonable expectations of the average user. The normal expectations of buying a concert ticket do not include being doxxed.
Its surprising they don't run a fowl of credit card processing agreements.
8) Never, ever incorporate popular extensions into the core product for efficiency. Blocking ads and better security should be the end users task to learn about, decide, and implement. If you *must* implement something like the "do not track" button, be sure to be extremely careful not to piss off advertizers: implement it by default "off", so that users can choose.
Unset was actually the required default state in the DNT spec, when Microsoft decided to violate it there was a lot of discussion about how it would be valid for advertisers to ignore DNT for IE users. (Microsoft later changed IE to require the user to change the setting).
That's interesting, I rarely have Firefox for Android crash, even the beta channel.
Just because you have name recognition with Firefox doesn't mean you should try to slap that name on every product you produce. Product awareness isn't transitive, confusion however is. I work for a company that did this, years later internally everyone still refers to the OG product with the now overarching brand, and externally customers are confused often not understanding what part of the brand they've bought. Obviously I won't name my employer but a public example might be how Microsoft used to stamp Windows on everything.
I'll go out on a limb here..... items actually sold by Amazon have low rate of fake reviews any items not sold by Amazon proper are probably a dumpster.
Actually, I should also say this is why most tech workers believe they are underpaid as they know of people in silicon valley earning twice or more their salary.