No, many users are sharing the theory that the downtime was to allow meta or google to take over the backend. Content delivery is different on the app now. For example, ads being served during videos not between videos.
Already do and users are noticing. Ads have been introduce in a really obnixious facebook/instagram style and contebt moderation is more facebook/instagrem esq as well. It would surprise no one on the platform if meta has already aquired it, and it just needs to be announced.
It's an interesting read if you're into recommender systems or AI in general. What amazes me is that despite this published work google and meta still can't produce a decent social media algorithm, so it's either incompetence or malice.
Even if you did provide the data, if its tabular you can forget chatGPT understanding it properly, unless it is a very small table or without writing code to summarise things. If it writes code, theres a significant chance it still messes things up unless what you're asking is incredibly routine.
All data in one spot? Like I do understand not trusting cloud storage, even if i personally think uploading an encrypted volume is safe, but not even semi regular backups on harddrives you take home or something?
the weird thing about banking apps is, if i don't install them and just log in via browser I don't need any of that bullshit. So why does my bank app need all that, if they're ok with browser just logging in? It all feels a little like something the app monkeys got sucked into because they don't know better and trust google more than they should.
yes but those types stick to live and tiktok lets you completely remove live from your feed. In fact if i don't want to see joe rogan, peterson, or other such horsemen of the misinformation apocalypse outside of live, I can make that decision on tiktok in a meaningful way. I can actually remove that content from my feed. Good luck getting that to work on youtube or instagram. You'll get that content if you like it or not. Good luck blocking all the random alphanumeric account names posting the deluge of that kind of content, reels / youtube shorts will force feed it to you anyway, no matter what you do.
A lot of those statements about how a lawyer is to conduct themselves do still assume clients act in good faith. If Zuck really is descending into neo-nazism, I wouldn't want to defend that either. I could not handle it morally, ethically, or conciously. It would not have been what I signed up for.
Zucks lawyer signed up to defend a specific man, the kind of man who would not do neo-nazi shit, so when that changes so too does the deal, no?
Except no "neo-Nazi shit" is happening and hyperbolic exaggeration like this not only dilutes the meaning of the word but creates fatigue in the general public, causing them to tune out future accusations.
If you're a lawyer and you can't consciously go to bat for over 50% of the country because you genuinely think they are "neo-nazis" - yeah, don't be a lawyer. But do see a therapist, because that's probably a condition in the DSM.
How is dining with and financially supporting a man who is openly racist, sexist, ableist, and homophobic, and who is an ultra-nationalist strongman who wants to “save America,” not doing “neo-Nazi shit”? Genuinely curious here — there seem to be a lot of comments with the attitude that calling Zuck a neo-Nazi is crazy hyperbole, but there seems to be quite a bit of evidence right in front of us.
We can of course debate about the precise definition of neo-Nazi. And sure, maybe this attorney should have used all the words I used above instead, but I don’t think it’s necessarily too far off to use “neo-Nazi” as a shortcut.
While *ultra-nationalism*, *xenophobia*, and support for *authoritarian tendencies* are concerning, automatically equating them with *neo-Nazism* risks diminishing the specific historical horror and ideology of Nazism. Neo-Nazism explicitly involves beliefs in racial supremacy, antisemitism, and the violent overthrow of democratic systems - we need clear evidence of these specific elements before applying that label.
business leaders often meet with and maintain relationships across the political spectrum for pragmatic reasons rather than ideological alignment. While this doesn't excuse enabling harmful rhetoric, it suggests we should distinguish between *strategic engagement* and genuine ideological support. The attorney's characterization seems to skip past this nuance.
> need clear evidence of these specific elements before applying that label
There is clear evidence of at least one of those things. Like it or not, as I said in my original post, “neo-Nazi” is close enough, I think.
Any business leader considering “strategic engagement” with the incoming administration is clearly morally bankrupt and deserves loud and public scorn, whether or not they ideologically support it.
reply