We had to do this in Colorado public schools in the late 80s.
30 years later I’ve got a mouth full of false teeth.
Not sure it worked out like they wanted it to.
We had to do this in Colorado public schools in the late 80s.
30 years later I’ve got a mouth full of false teeth.
Not sure it worked out like they wanted it to.
Clearly you haven’t spent 3 minutes playing with StableDiffusion. AI has already plumbed the depths of human awfulness.
If you only do the easy part, then yes that’s infinitely replaceable. Being a pretty face is exactly that, and AI can do that all day long.
Being actually entertaining and engaging, though, is a different story, and AI is struggling to pick that up. And of course teams of corporate marketers continually fail at this.
But yes, the “job” of “being attractive on the internet” can now be outsourced to machines.
Is it “don’t use them and just keep track of your stuff”? Because that seems like the most right answer here.
Most nonprofits don’t do a lot with the general public. They have the community they serve (which is getting something for nothing and therefore “customer service” is not a thing) and the community that funds them (where, of course, service is king). How the company treats you on the outside very much depends on which side of that equation you’re on.
This is necessary behavior for nonprofits, at least in the US, because of the demand for charitable giving. It’s ultimately a decent structure for a charity, but a pretty awful way to run a product or service business, since the incentives are all on the opposite side of “good product/service”. Private for-profits with strong, conscientious leadership do much better - I encourage you to read up on Patagonia and Gore-Tex as examples.
The idea that non-profits aren’t profiting-seeking is the biggest misunderstanding in the world. I work for a large one, and it’s absolutely the same rampant penny-squeezing 30%-unsustainable-growth-seeking monstrosity as anything in the Valley. The pittance that gets thrown to “charitable causes” is just another tax dodge in an otherwise profit-demanding venture. Swap “shareholders” with “the endowment” and there’s no difference at all.
Much better to be a for-profit company with a charter demanding where profits in excess of modest growth targets are spent internally.
They need to make some money - infrastructure isn’t free, employees need paid, etc. they should be self sustaining.
They don’t need to be 2009-Google profitable though. That pipe dream needs to end. 3-5% YoY growth is plenty.
I think you’re making a solid point, but I think the basic problem is a fundamental lack of the willingness to listen and digest someone else’s point of view. Sources of information are important to a debate, but they’re ultimately irrelevant if either side isn’t willing to even consider the possibility that there’s more to learn than what they already know.
Agreed. Lemmy has exactly one political opinion, and woe betide any poor soul of another persuasion.
Otherwise the community is pretty great. Lots of good conversation with intelligent commenters.
There’s nothing to be done about it. Legally there’s no such thing as “hate speech” in the US, and there won’t be unless we get around to changing the first amendment.
Continue living my life as if federal shenanigans mostly don’t affect daily life, because they don’t.
Bold of you to assume there’s QA happening on govt UIs.
That’s…a good portion of the free email providers on the planet. Even if companies are using this list as a filter for signups, it’s only going to be for a limited time.
Companies want new accounts. They don’t mind very much if those accounts are fake - big numbers get investor attention. It only takes a handful of support cases with “I tried to register but it says my email address isn’t allowed” before the C-suite makes it clear to IT that this filter is no longer in sync with the corporate strategy.
Unfortunately DoD is right. PFAS are terrible things, but they’re used everywhere (including consumer goods at an astonishing rate) because they’re really effective. Once there are good alternatives, yes let’s ban them forever, but until then we’d all notice their absence in our goods in a big bad way.
Cars are computers. All those fancy features run on software. Software can be patched to get rid of unpleasant functionality.
It’s not always easy, but it’s doable, and the more of these stupid features they add, the more people spend time working on undoing them.
It’s been much better for me, haven’t had an unsolicited e-mail hit my inbox yet.
Why would a union help at all? Organized workers won’t change the financial and legal obligations at the top. It won’t drive the focus away from quarterly earnings. Unions protect the workers, they don’t drive company culture.
There is no saving Google. The only way out of the hole they’re in is to have the integrity not to fall in in the first place.
Can’t wait to patch that out, should be as fun as that dumbshit auto-shutoff they have now.
An overreaction by members of the board that wanted to keep AI development slow and “safe”. Sudden news that there was a major advancement toward AGI (which they believe will destroy humanity, there’s a seriously a whole cult around this in AI research circles right now) that they hadn’t been told about sent them off the deep end. Those board members thought they could fire Altman and throw the brakes on, not anticipating that 700 employees would side against them and potentially migrate to Microsoft where the “AI ethics” would have no influence at all.
They shot their shot and lost massively, for themselves and their fellow believers. That attitude toward AI is now being labeled a business liability in the minds of every decision maker in the whole AI world.
So much this. I started using it during Covid, and it’s been so great that I prefer Sams over any other shopping experience.