that would likely turn on him in a heart beat.

Again, what happens to him personally or to Facebook as a company is irrelevant when it comes to how our lives are affected. The regulation of social platforms is good for society regardless of the efect regulation has on the owners or the companies owning the platforms.

Your argument is built around the wrong desirable outcome.

A minority that probably hates his guts.

How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform’s influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.

my experience with iCloud is pretty bad. I worked in a startup at some point which was giving Macs to employees and sort of expected them to figure it out. We had a few people quit and that’s when we figured out that the macs became shiny useless things since we didn’t have access to wipe the associated account and Apple didn’t help in any way. So, from my experience, this is a horrible “feature”.

Now i find out that it’s even worse and it gives 3rd parties means to harass you… I really think that avoiding theft comes at a far to high a price

Sure. My point was that exposing someone to scams like social engineering is really really bad and far less desirable than keeping an open line of communication for a purchase

ISIS? Hamas? any number of such organizations would happily use some mass murdering weapons if given access to them. Putin has shown that he doesn’t care about what happens to russian citizens if he can win something out of their suffering so empowering terrorist organizations to harm people, even russians, is not a big price to pay to make his point

Is it though? The author of this article knows what they’re doing, but a regular person would probably not be as relaxed with some of the threats. I didn’t see this in the article, how does the thief have the ability to contact the victim?

No. I also checked to see if I refused any cookies too and I didn’t

I haven’t noticed it being small. Any app recommendations?

This doesn’t mean that there are reddit comments suggesting putting glue on pizza or even eating glue. It just means that the implementation of Google’s LLM is half baked and built it’s model in a weird way.

Google AI suggested you put glue on your pizza because a troll said it on Reddit once…

Genuine question: do you know that’s what happened? This type of implementation can suggest things like this without it having to be in the training data in that format.

i don’t think the nukes are where the drills take place, that would be quite stupid

As somebody else who lived through part of it, closer to the side that was on the “losing side of history”, I think that it’s much more difficult to get someone to push the required buttons without the state indoctrination apparatus as it was in USSR. Everybody hesitated back then, I think it’s highly unlikely they won’t now.

That’s an empty threat. Maybe it wasn’t empty when there was some ideology backing the threat like in the 60s, but there’s no way that the Russian oligarchy would accept such an outcome given the luxury they hope to live in.

The discussions about sending military instructors or contractors to Ukraine to train troops and assist with equipment repairs have raised concerns among NATO allies about being drawn into a conflict with Russia

Isn’t NATO already in a de facto conflict with Russia? Almost all countries in the alliance have placed sanctions on it and are openly hostile towards Putin’s regime except maybe Turkey. Also, Russia has been unable to push forward the front line in the past year or so, is NATO really worried that they have the capability to open another front line?

let me put it this way: if you have money, time can be whatever you want it to be

the bible also contains accounts of god helping his people conquer land and uproot the residing population from it. I wouldn’t use it as a moral reference.

In fact, let’s be honest: there is no point in quoting any religious text, regardless of religion, when discussing morality. These texts are horribly dated and should be considered as historically interesting, but nothing more.

What data though? This article doesn’t contain data - that’s my issue. You’re right, it’s not asking fishermen if they think we should eat fish. It’s asking nutritionists if they like fish.

No. I’m saying that “77% of Top …etc” is a stupid way of conveying the importance of the information.

why does anyone care what experts think?!

That’s not what I said at all, is it? I’m simply pointing out that we’re reacting to a poorly written article which plays on our emotional side instead of discussing the actual facts. Yes, scientists doing research in an area believe that their research is going to confirm their hypothesis. That’s how research works. In this case, I’m surprised it’s not 100% to be honest.

The whole premise of the article is stupid. Not global warming, not the fact that we’re heading towards more than 2.5C global warming by 2100, not the people answering the questions. What’s stupid is the idea of “conducting an opinion poll” in that specific group.

I’m in no way a climate change denier and I too believe that the current path leads us there. However, isn’t it normal for 80% of climate scientist actively researching this to think this way? Would they not spend their efforts somewhere else if they would think this isn’t happening?

A survey among mathematicians showed that 80% consider that mathematics has the answer they’re looking for.

We need to discuss hard data and proper research, not surveys.