Re: We cannot have nice things! We've proved it.
Definitely the squirrels' fault:
2134 posts • joined 24 Jun 2009
Uber(Eats), DoorDash and Grubhub are griping, but Postmates and Seamless aren't? And Seamless is strictly NYC-only.
I have it on good authority that most New Yorkers use Seamless (and maybe Postmates - but usually Seamless), so I would expect those two to be the major complainants, if this really did have a negative impact on earnings. It sounds more like the usual suspects are complaining that their liscence to print money has been revoked.
Remember, in corporate speak "we're losing money" can usually be read as "We're not making as much money as we would like"
I can see why Open(?!)AI came up with those rules, but I believe that their hardline stance in this case is reactionary and kinda' dumb.
I would think that the wiping of the bot at the end of the credits would count for a lot of their protections. If the bot instances are non-shareable, then that should cover the rest of them. At that point it's little more than a technology-enhanced daydream; with about the same amount of risk.
To be honest, both parties are authoritarian. Even US Libertarians are authoritarian. Not that the parties have authoritarian elements, or leanings, they are straight up authoritarian. The main difference is flavor of authoritarianism: Corporate or Government.
There is no non-authoritarian element in US politics; Bernie is as close as we get, and he's not that close.
Approved, or Unapproved, It's my time, not the company's. If I use their IP in my personal project, that is my misdeed; if I create a competing product, using knowledge of what the company is doing, then If one developer an make a better product than the whole corporate, they deserve to lose business.
My time is My time. My employer has no more room to tell me what personal or hobby projects I can work on than they can tell me who to date. I see no difference between the employer claiming IP on personal project and them claiming my children. I didn't make either on company time, or using company resources, so they have no claim. The company is my employer not my owner.
Pay may be based on assumptions, but the employer is assuming the risk of assuming.
If I assume that I'll be working a 40 hour week and the contract did not state hours, and then my employer tells me I need to do an extra 5 hours of "business development", I am on the hook because of my assumptions.
If an employer assumes that 10% of my paycheck is for commuting, but it doesn't specify that in the contract, then they don't get to claim that 10% back if I telework.
"With many businesses struggling it is unsurprising that they will be looking for ways to cut costs." - What the Hell?!
The only way businesses are struggling right now is the lack of people willing to work customer-facing jobs for shite pay. Google is NOT one of those. Although, if they put this into effect, they may well become one.
I wonder if a well-placed VPN could report your tele-working place as Fisher Island (average income in 2018 of $2.2 million) and get a commensurate pay hike?
wouldn't the "beaming power to earth via RF" almost have to be a MASER?
The main advantage to collecting in space is that you don't have to worry about atmospheric attenuation. "Beaming" the power to ground stations will have to go through atmosphere, so you need an intensity/frequency that renders that attenuation significantly less significant, so MASER.
The point being made is less "the hardware/software is racist" and more "the development and testing were not conducted using subjects of varying skin tones, and as such are optimized to a fairly narrow band, and falls down when analyzing people of color." With the implication that Systemic Racism is the reason why the system was not sufficiently tested/developed against darker skintones.
"The broadband industry is committed to appearing to be working with state and federal policymakers on sustainable solutions that will serve the needs of all low-income Americans. While well-intended, the state's law ignored the $50 monthly broadband
discount subsidy Congress enacted already gives us, as well as the many commitments, programs and offerings that broadband providers have made promised for low-income consumers."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021