I know, and I’m glad of it, but look: tech companies DO fuck around. A lot. There are lots of ways to pressure individuals into cutting corners, and to pressure auditors and controllers to look the other way. The regulators might catch them, but there’s a very real possibility that a tech company fucks up REAL bad before they get shut down. They have a very long history of it.

And who’s going to make sure these tech companies actually run a nuclear power plant responsibly? Have they ever run anything responsibly?

I thought everyone did this, I don’t think anyone in that classroom was actually learning anything about the contents of the text, all anyone could think about is “don’t fuck up saying words out loud”

Ok but if you see sliced croissant loaf, fucking buy that shit, buy two, immediately. I don’t even like to shop any more at places where they don’t sell it.

Folks, the docker runtime is open source, and not even the only one of its kind. They won’t charge for that. If they tried to make it closed source, everyone would just laugh and switch to one of several completely free alternatives. They charge for hosting images, build time on their build servers, and various “premium” developer tools you don’t need. In fact, you need none of this, you can do all of it yourself on whatever hardware you deem to be good enough. There are also many other hosted alternatives out there.

Docker thinks they have a monopoly, for some reason. If you use the technology, you are probably already aware that they don’t.

Accurate.

No matter what question you ask them, they have an answer. Even when you point out their answer was wrong, they just have a different answer. There’s no concept of not knowing the answer, because they don’t know anything in the first place.

They don’t care. At the moment AI is cheap for them (because some other investor is paying for it). As long as they believe AI reduces their operating costs*, and as long as they’re convinced every other company will follow suit, it doesn’t matter if consumers like it less. Modern history is a long string of companies making things worse and selling them to us anyway because there’s no alternatives. Because every competitor is doing it, too, except the ones that are prohibitively expensive.

[*] Lol, it doesn’t do that either

1. Seems like a very reasonable objection to me. I’d guess that most of us Immich users are using it in the first place because it improves the privacy of our photos, and a third party seeing our location data certainly undermines that.
2. I would have complained had I noticed, so you might be the first one to notice. Immich’s userbase isn’t huge right now, it’s definitely possible.
3. Featurewise, I’d like: a) a clearly documented way to disable map data leaving my server; b) a set of well-integrated choices (maybe even just two, as long as one of them is something like openstreetmap); c) the current configurability to be well documented.
4. I’d love it if all such outbound data streams are also documented. Many security and privacy-focused products give you a “quiet” mode of some kind, where you can turn off everything that sends your data somewhere else. It’s a requirement in many enterprise installations.

I mean, he’s always lying, so the answer must be yes, but if you told me this was true about him I would have believed you

He was offering to play a game of 1-on-1 basketball with special rules in her driveway.

Huh, idgi. I looked it up and all I saw was him getting fucked by 12 of his peers.

It’s odd that someone would think “I espouse all these awful, awful ideas about the world. Not because I believe them, but because other people don’t like them.”

And then build this bot, to try to embody all of that simultaneously. Like, these are all right-wing ideas but there isn’t a majority of wingnuts that believe ALL OF THEM AT ONCE. Many people are anti-abortion but can see with their plain eyes that climate change is real, or maybe they are racist but not holocaust deniers.

But here comes someone who wants a bot to say “all of these things are true at once”. Who is it for? Do they think Gab is for people who believe only things that are terrible? Do they want to subdivide their userbase so small that nobody even fits their idea of what their users might be?

Well it’s good to know 59% of execs are aware that AI isn’t gonna change shit

It’s not “losing momentum” because those pledges were always lies. It’s the corporate equivalent of “I’ll get to it when I get to it”. We never had that momentum in the first place, and we won’t unless the force of law with actual consequences makes it happen. Bulldoze every company that emits CO2 and doesn’t fix it.

In almost 30 years I’ve never seen anyone actually switch databases underneath an existing product. I have worked at one place where generic database APIs were required because it was a product that supportedf multiple databases, but no individual customer was really expected to switch from one database to another, that’s just how the product was written.

I have heard of this happening, but it’s the kind of thing that happens in one of two scenarios:

1. Very early in a product’s lifetime the developer (probably a startup) realizes the database they chose was a poor choice. Since the product doesn’t even exist yet, the switching cost is low, and generic database use wouldn’t have helped.

2. A management shakeup in a very mature product causes the team to switch databases. This is, as you observed, usually part of a major rewrite of some kind, so lots of things are going to change at once. Also–critically–this only happens with companies that have more money than sense. Management doesn’t mind if it takes a long time to switch.

   It won’t go smoothly, at all, but nobody actually cares, so generic database use wouldn’t have helped.

It is not. This is deeply unethical.

If a company takes its stock public, the shares sold generate cash which is held by the company selling them, and used to build the business. Nobody who bought them, including the insiders, is really forbidden from selling them (except insofar as insider trading laws apply), but if an insider sells shares this early it indicates a deep distrust by the seller of the underlying value of their own company. Doing so while letting outside investors spin is therefore unethical because it signals that the people who built the company are planning to abandon it and let the stock tank.

See also: lock-up period, which is not required during an IPO (news to me!) but the absence of a lock-up period sure seems like a red flag someone should have noticed. Although, I suppose, many people did.

Wait, they’re leaving their users holding the bag? Who could have predicted this

deleted by creator

The world would be a better place if Mark Zuckerberg accidentally got sucked into a jetski engine somehow

I knew you could do it