This is pretty standard when someone leaves Microsoft.

The management above the person leaving sends a nice message about them and their work and NEVER tells the truth about _why_ they are leaving.

At the upper levels I don't think there's really any sincerity about anything said, one way or another. This is just how corporate America operates.

Nextcloud has done great work in terms of EU-Soverignty and offering credible replacements for all the pieces of the the Microsoft stack.

Nextcloud Talk works well for video conference meetings.

MS Teams is a pretty terrible piece of software. The design of it is bad, and the implementation is bad.

Any software that tries to copy it will also be bad.

If you haven't spun up a nextcloud AIO instance yet for your organization(s), you should try it out.

And yet when Sony removed Linux support for the PS3, a change that affects 'virtually zero of their customers,' Slashdot was calling for lawsuits.

My advice: don't lament Raspberry Pi RAM upgrades, especially given they're only slightly harder to perform now. Very few hackers ever performed them, the main audience for them turned out to be dodgy hardware resellers online, and in most cases, repair doesn't seem to be impeded at all, either. Think of the users that will no longer be fooled by a shady seller on Amazon, especially now that the perverse incentives for board mods and reusing harvested RAM chips are at their highest.

This doesn't pass the 'would you say the same thing if it wasn't your baby' test.

I hope you've all read the Aschenbrenner paper from 2024.

https://situational-awareness....

Never mind Trump's rambling speaking style. He's aware of it and he likes it.

We know that people in the Trump admin have, at minimum, been briefed on the Aschenbrenner paper. I assume some of them have read the whole thing.

The point he's making - that we're on the cusp of ASI, and the USA MUST not get there wildly behind, for example, China, is correct. And that the USA should not be shackled by an international framework that rival nations are going to ignore anyway.

He's directionally correct, even if you think he's too stupid to know what he's agreeing with.

No. I think hollywood has always been subversive and run by foreign pedophiles. For example, look for the interview with Shirley Temple about what they tried doing to her as a _child_,

I think it has produced enough pro-American-MIC films every now and then to stay out of more government trouble.

You usually don't realize (at the time) that the media you watched as a child was subverting you (and your parents desires). And unless you revisit those films a generation later with a critical eye, you may not realize it ever.

But that's how the ratchet effect works. The newer media that is now visibly odious to me is only visibly odious to me because it is targeting the edge of an overton window that has continued moving since my own youth. The leading edge of socially allowable media subversion continues to advance until a historical reset event sets it back somewhat. Or, sometimes, when there is sufficient market rejection.

In the case of hollyweird, the concentration of power has significant drawbacks; destroying that concentration of power will probably be a net benefit. (to be clear, I think It will amplify other problems instead).

In general, I think evil seems to be more effective when it is centralized and powerful, with captured institutions, while maintaining the ability to operate openly, and has de-facto monopoly control over the domain in which it operates, and when most people do not understand what is being done to them.

If Trump had promised to destroy hollywood, I would have voted for him 10x harder.

(And i expect I would be disappointed because he wouldn't actually follow through with it)

Anyway, hopefully, AI gets the job done and finally kills that wretched industry. I look forward to further democratization of movie making.

(fwiw, my knee jerk reaction is to oppose the merger.)

The current generation of these smartglasses devices will fail and disappear.

Let me show my work:

1. women cannot use these smart glasses to take selfies.
2. therefore, women will not wear them.
3. therefore, the only people who wear them will be men
4. anything that men do but which women do not do is probably criminal, but certainly creepy, a red flag, or a cause of the ick
5. therefore, men will be shamed (or arrested) into not wearing them either

QED.

You're right, they could have made that choice. However, they would have priced themselves out of the market, as while they would have gained a small uptick in 'I want a cool Linux computer' sales, they would have faced a massive loss in 'I want a game console' and 'I want a Blu-Ray player' sales, which were the two primary drivers of PS3 sales.

Console price is king. There's a reason Sony's entire console launch presentation for the original PlayStation at E3 in 1995 was, and I quote, '$299.'

You can find it on YouTube, if you're interested.

Unless the watch can initiate chest compressions and AED functions, simply calling emergency services when you lose your pulse isn't going to accomplish anything.

And then they pulled the Linux support when they realized how many people were buying PS2s for Linux, and not buying games, thus costing Sony money under the 'razors and blades' paradigm.

I don't think training a model with copyrighted data is any kind of gray zone at all.

Running inference against such a model _might_ be infringing.

But I don't see the legal argument that model training would be.

Think of model training as lossy data compression. You provide an input, it produces a compressed artifact, and it can no longer reproduce the original when you uncompress it. It can produce _something_. It cannot reproduce the original.

On slashdot, we all agree that format shifting copyrighted works should be allowed and unrestricted, right?

If there is applicable case law here about how lossy a "reproduction" can be before copyright has something to say about it, that would be relevant. Do you know of any?

I think you're repeating something that feels emotionally valid but in my experience, isn't factually (or legally) accurate.

I have found AI models to be frustratingly _obedient_ of copyright.

I'll be in a situation where I ask a specific question about what a document says, and the AI repeatedly says the work is copyrighted and it can't just tell me what it says _verbatim_, but it can answer specific questions for me in its own words (while telling me to check the original).

Two examples from my life are procedural questions about what Roberts Rules of Order would require in a given situation, and, what ASD STE-100 says about how to name/word things.

The applicable US law would appear to be USC 17 Sec 106 and 107, which on one hand limits derivative works, but on the other, allows fair use for purposes of teaching, scholarship, or research.

(USC references provided by AI, btw. Which I haven't read)

I used to agree with you, and then oddly enough, about 25-30 years ago, I came across this signature on another regular slashdot posters postings:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

(AI tells me the attribution is "The Red Lily", Anatole France, 1894)

The problem here is that when you turned on the TV for the first time and clicked the 'I accept' button, you agreed to the recording, and probably agreed that you'd be responsible for letting anybody else who might be in range of the TV know that they're subject to recording.

Is that going to hold up in court? Who knows, but can you afford to spend the money to find out? Somebody eventually will, and you'll get a coupon for twenty bucks off of a new TV as the settlement.