I imagine the implementation would cost them more than the fine…

It does sound ludicrous…might be better off making a concave mirror so it reflects and intensifies the light…like a giant magnifying glass over an ant hill. Yeah…that’s how they should do it. Nothing gonna wrong with that.

That means someone at meta thinks the evidence that will come in trial will cost them more than $1.4b

Often, yes, there just aren’t enough union shops anymore.

He’s being oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!

Absolutely. I’ve gotten myself spun up about determinism before and eventually decided that I’m going to believe in free will for the time being. Much like theism is for many, the idea of free will is kinda comforting for me and it helps me cope with reality to feel like I (and everyone else) has agency. Plus, if I’m wrong it doesn’t really matter and I never could have been right at this point in my life anyway.

But we never could have designed it any other way (assuming no free will)

They fired 12 employees of a workforce numbering over 216,000. Looks like they fired 1000x more employees (literally…12000) last year just because “that’s business.” What a nothingburger.

What would be better is polluting the software with invalid but still plausible constraints, so the chips would seem OK and might work for days or weeks but would fail in the field… especially if these chips are used in weapon systems or critical infrastructure.

It’s a pretty big presumption that Elon Musk is providing transparent and accurate information to consumers about a technology he’s hoping to sell. While I’d agree with the premise normally, he’s kind of a known bad actor at this point. I’m a pretty firm believer in informed consent for this kinda stuff, I just don’t see much reason to trust Musk is willing to fully inform someone of the limitations, constraints or risks involved in anything he has a personal stake in. If you aren’t informed, you can’t provide consent.

You really don’t need anything near as complex as AI…a simple script could be configured to automatically close the issue as solved with a link to a randomly-selected unrelated issue.

Did you read the whole article? Newsweek misrepresented the results by leaving out other answers that clearly demonstrate the vast majority think Hamas is a terrorist organization and the Oct 7th attacks were terroristic and genocidal in intent. The sample size was far too small. You’ll notice they didn’t even tell you what the actual question asked was. There’s a big difference between “do you support Hamas” and “do you support the Palestinian government” or “do you support Palestinian efforts to defend against Israeli attacks?” Surveys in general, and especially ones on politically decisive ideas, are notoriously easy to skew based on subtle differences in how you word questions. I’d recommend you be very suspicious of any report on a survey that doesn’t tell you what was actually asked.

From a shit survey misquoted by a failed Republican sycophant. Echo chamber.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2023/11/04/politifact-is-it-true-that-50-of-gen-zers-support-hamas/71436111007/

If you think that’s what’s happening, you’ve been in an echo chamber yourself.

Yeah, but the guy that thinks sharing snuff films at work ok is likely to also be the kind of guy that is vehemently homophobic…and I mean the more scientific definition where exposure causes physical disgust or discomfort as opposed to the more political definition of just not viewing them as equals. I don’t think it’s a huge leap to assume this is the kind of person that would have the same visceral experience they shared with OP…especially if OP were to imply the massive, throbbing high definition photo was also actually gore.

I think some of this is also just that pop science often lags years or decades behind real science. Most people couldn’t name another famous psychologist, or an evolutionary scientist beyond Darwin, or a physicist beyond Einstein.

Specifically regarding art and philosophy, even if Freud’s idea were wrong, you can still glean something useful (or at least interesting) from using them as a starting premise.

I mean, if that’s ok, it’s surely ok for OP to send the offending coworker random dick pics every day at lunch.

Geez, how you gonna equate civil rights with civil rights? What a stretch!

Just like genders!

Guess we’ll find out whether TikTok or reproductive freedom is more important…