There’s a mode where you swipe your finger over each letter in order and it auto completes the word. Not sure how often younger people use it (though I wasn’t aware you could do that until I saw someone younger doing it).

Google can make it more difficult but it’s like anti-cheat, a losing arms race. In the end users control if adverts play even if Google controls the computer as strictly as North Korea OS.

Words do not have innate definitions and “piracy” can mean whatever you want (when not in a court of law). If people understand what you mean then no direct issue. Due to the association with stealing and murder on boats I won’t call copyright infringement “piracy” (thanks music industry propaganda) or blocking adverts. If you insist on calling me a pirate I will respond with pirate talk, ye landlubber.

Requesting users play ads but giving them the content even if they don’t means it’s more like asking for a charitable donation than a transaction. They could paywall it but they don’t, and it’s not like there’s a competitor with the same content.

Also, Google feel entitled to record your voice on your phone and send it to their servers. Do they think their users are a charity, or worse?

Next time ““piracy”” comes up this is how I want to write a reply.

There would be less talking over each other over definitions if the music industry had not convicted people that murder and stealing on boats was good way to describe unauthorized copying.

I activate false dichotomy and flip the table.

Copyright is the legal method to limit redistribution of easily copied material, not as if there’s anything else people could appeal to.

I ain’t a fan of copyright but make it last 10 years instead of X + infinity and maybe it’s not so bad. I can’t argue against copyright fully as I think copyleft is essential for software.

Considered a universal basic income as a means to reduced the profit motive when authors create/share media.

I was thinking strong wind, flooding, fire, rockslides, etc

I ain’t a fan of the corporate tracking device but how people acted before a technology existed says little to how best to act now. Even if it did the past is littered with the corpses of those unaware of incoming danger from natural disasters.

Not even the taxman?

It’s not your car if someone else controls it.

Site can’t be viewed from the EU. Too many cookies put in mouth without consent.

I suspect others are talking about “thinking” only objectively.

B) If a LLM had a subjective experience when given input presumably it has none when all processes are stopped (subjective, unverifiable).

A) If a LLM has no input then there are no processes going on at all which could be described as thinking (objective: verifiable: what is the program doing).

🐃+🐧 🤓

It’s unappealing to have software be hostile. Software that does what I want only if it’s creator doesn’t actively oppose it… that need not be on my computer.

Update consumer protection laws and actually enforce them. Laws that were written back when tech would come with the schematics.

Money that could be used on Google products and services. A positive feedback loop!

Why are we comfortable with not owning the things we buy :/

When tech isn’t controlled by the user then the user is controlled by the dev, and power corrupts.

Some are born selfish and others are molded by our insistence you strive for money to survive.