On a related note, I’ve had trouble finding high quality 8" tablets in the last few years. They used to be easy to find, but maybe with the flagship smartphones getting larger, sales on smaller tablets died off? Unsure.

Now that you mention it, we can be certain that they have done so, and will continue to do so.

God bless Florida.

If AI is stealing our jobs, can we lock AI up in El Salvador? After all, it’s not paying its fair share of taxes. It’s stealing from us. It’s a danger to women and children. It eats cats and dogs.

Just $11? Just? If you need that money, then it’s a lot of money to you. But capitalists always use double speak. They could have said that the company was trying to stiff him over a mere $111, which would have been 0.000001% of the company’s operating costs.

There is plenty wrong with generative AI as a tool if you think of it in those terms.

I would say that if the depth of analysis is limited to “AI” or “genAI” then use of it in schools is overwhelmingly bad. If that’s the limit of our ability to frame the issue, then banning AI would appear inevitable, and any graded assignment that might encourage AI use should be banned.

But if you want to break things down, you can find specific tools (i.e., calculators, grammar checkers) that could be labeled as AI or specific uses of genAI (i.e., brainstorming) that have use. And it is this latter approach – clearly identifying positive uses – that is difficult for students, media writers, and apparently policy makers to do.

Yes and no. Remember that rich kids could always hire ghost writers. ChatGPT made that available to the masses, but that particular problem goes back centuries.

What we have seen is that the curriculum is often decided by a distant committee who actually doesn’t understand life on the ground. In reality, there are easy ways for teachers to undercut the utility of ChatGPT, if they have the freedom to make changes. But that depends on teachers having control and the time to make changes to how they teach.

This is 90% hyperbole. As always, believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see. We live most of our lives responding to shit we personally witnessed. Trust your senses. Of course the other part is a matter for concern, but not like the apocalyptic crowd would tell you.

It is always a safe bet that the snake oil salespeople are, once again, selling snake oil.

Except what you’re describing doesn’t make sense. If the new owners purchased all of those things, then in reality they purchased the company. Courts are very likely to agree on this. It looks like a company-wide sale, therefore it probably is, even if someone tries to add a line saying “we aren’t liable”.

But imagine someone could “sell everything other than the liability”. In such a case, the seller would be putting themselves on the hook to pay outstanding debts (i.e., the seller would be liable). And we know they have money – they just sold the thing. So then the seller would pay… But they know that in advance, so they would not agree to such a sale in the first place, unless they were planning to steal that money through creative accounting of some kind… But both parties know all of that that in advance, so they would both be acting fraudulently.

I think a company like this is not planning to linger for years. The owners wanna make a buck for a year or two and then sell it off. If they can stiff their customers in the process, they just don’t care.

For long-lasting companies the motivation would be different. But this is not a world-famous VPN company, not by a long shot.

Ask the article’s author. They could have linked to a PDF court filing but of course they didn’t, because they suck at journalism.

This is overly simple. You can’t legitimately believe that an explanation only focusing on one person is sufficient to predict American politics. Nope, no chance. Meh.

What a terrible headline. All of us? No. Next.

You can define it that way, but the problem is that the authors of the article didn’t give a definition. For example, I think they think the term means to do what’s in your job description and contract. And they think that workers should be going above and beyond that. But if they were forced to spell it out, then people would ask why companies don’t change the job description or contract, because obviously it’s ridiculous to ask people to do what you didn’t ask them to do.

“kills” … This is still occurring, let’s use the present tense.

Exactly. Workers are doing their jobs! Gasp!

Holy f***, God forbid making settings menus that actually get you to where you want to go, definitely wouldn’t want to do that, much better to AI.

It’s not just you. The title gets causation totally wrong. If people made bad assumptions about how technology would change in the future, it’s their assumptions that are the problem, not reality.

Racism, like the wind, has always been with us. Only a closet racist would claim otherwise.

deleted by creator