The fediverse just doesn’t have the audience nor ease of use to be the smart investment for most people, at least in the short term.
In the long term, I believe the fediverse would be the right move. However most people struggle to think long-term outside of their own fields, and scientists are not immune to this phenomenon.
.sucks
I maintain that this was made purely as an income stream for registrars. Every single company and brand should be rushing to buy companyname.sucks. Every town buying yourtown.sucks. Every political candidate getting into bidding wars over candidate.sucks or opponent.sucks.
First I laughed, but now I’m seeing the genius.
I run tech for a midsize business, and consult for several small businesses. Aside from one 4-person company, all of the businesses I oversee found it less expensive to host their own LLM in Azure than to pay for OpenAI’s subscriptions. I’m talking 10% of the cost of subscriptions for the same functionality.
The midsize business in particular has only seen measurable benefit from more specialized/global applications of “AI” tools, such as integrating machine learning into data analytics. There are a ton of people who use the LLM chat, but I think the mishaps caused by the LLM may have undone any efficiency gains. Either way, I’m sure glad they’re not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for it.
Obligatory Poe’s Law mention, since Lenny seems to have agreed that it’s important.
That’s hilarious. The Lemmy hive mind is definitely forming.
recital carrots
I don’t know why, but I read this as “rectal carrots”. Like some sort of a carrot suppository.
Brb, I’m gonna try something…
Makes sense that it was a definitions update that caused this, and I get why that’s not something you’d want to lag behind on like you could with the agent. (Putting aside that one of the selling points of next-gen AV/EDR tools is that they’re less reliant on definitions updates compared to traditional AV.) It’s just a bit wild that there isn’t more testing in place.
It’s like we’re always walking this fine line between “security at all costs” vs “stability, convenience, etc”. By pushing definitions as quickly as possible, you improve security, but you’re taking some level of risk too. In some alternate universe, CS didn’t push definitions quickly enough, and a bunch of companies got hit with a zero-day. I’d say it’s an impossible situation sometimes, but if I had to choose between outage or data breach, I’m choosing outage every time.
The fact that they weren’t already doing staggered releases is mind-boggling. I work for a company with a minuscule fraction of CrowdStrike’s user base / value, and even we do staggered releases.
I hear what you’re saying, but I’m pretty sure Trump will support genocide way more than Biden has.
Yes, it’s absurd that this is what things have come to, but I’ll still be supporting the lesser of the two evils.
YMMV, but my local library system has a limit on the number of e-books that can be checked out at a time. Some e-books they only have 1 or 2 “copies” of, other they have 20+ “copies”. Seems dumb to me that there’s a limit, but I’m sure they’re forced to do it for a reason.
Not OC, but there’s definitely an AI bubble.
First of all, real “AI” doesn’t even exist yet. It’s all machine learning, which is a component of AI, but it’s not the same as AI. “AI” is really just a marketing buzzword at this point. Every company is claiming their app is “AI-powered” and most of them aren’t even close.
Secondly, “AI” seems to be where crypto was a few years ago. The bitcoin bubble popped (along with many other currencies), and so will the AI bubble. Crypto didn’t go away, nor will it, and AI isn’t going away either. However, it’s a fad right now that isn’t going to last in its current form. (This one is just my opinion.)
I described it to my dad like this: “They don’t need to listen to your conversations because they’re already able to simulate your thoughts.”
Kinda a stretch, but it worked for him.
I actually saw a video once where the argument was that phones aren’t listening. Rather, Google (and Meta and the like) have so many other data points on you that they don’t need to listen. Listening to you would be far less efficient and far less insightful than relying on their vast network of other data they have on you. Even if you don’t use a single Google product, you’re still not safe.
Reminds me of the story where Target knew a customer was pregnant before she did. They started sending her ads for pregnancy/baby products before she even knew she was pregnant, all because they had so much data on her.
In my opinion, this is way more terrifying and problematic than if they were listening to us.
I disagree with your opinion of the integration with Threads, but I agree with you that it should be up to the individual instances and/or users.
Meta is a horrible company and I want nothing to do with them, but the whole point of the fediverse is that it’s decentralized. Anyone can spin up an instance if Lemmy or Mastodon and choose what other instances they federate with. If we were to somehow ban Meta’s instances, we create a pretty sketchy precedent.
Agreed, they probably should have been ordered to stop a while ago.
That said, Apple is the largest company in the U.S. by a number of metrics, so the fact that the government would cross them at all is kind of a surprise.
Oof, right before the holidays too. What a blow to their sales.
I wonder if Apple will use the estimated sales losses as damages when they counter-sue the other party in the patent dispute. Apple is taking “preemptive” steps to comply with an order that is not in effect yet – perhaps it’s a long con to entangle the patent holder in a prolonged legal battle so as to devalue and acquire them.
I didn’t receive it as pedantic or talking down at all. I just totally agree with you as well!
You know, I was trying to tread lightly, lest the Zionist apologists show up to try and redefine “genocide”.
But the reality is this:
When you use the U.N.’s definition of genocide (“acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”), the picture is pretty clear.
I most certainly was not! After some searching, I found an article about Synology’s new restrictions on which hard drives can be used in Synology’s NASs.
A few important notes:
A prediction: This is a scream test. Within a month, Synology will walk this back. They’ll make some excuse about it taking time to test other hard drive brands for compatibility. They’ll claim that they never intended to prevent you from using whatever hard drives you want, that they just needed to make 100% sure everything was perfect first, and that they always had your best interests at heart.
This will all be a lie, of course. The real plan is to measure how loud their biggest customers scream about this change. And then, maybe a year or two from now, they’ll quietly update a user agreement or a warranty document to reduce coverage for NASs that use third-party hard drives. Maybe they’ll add some extra “safety features” to DSM for third-party hard drives (of course with the intention of keeping you safe) that will cause a “minor” performance hit.
I’m sure that if you subscribe to DSM Premium for a reasonable monthly fee, all of your problems will be solved.