Depends what side of the class divide you are on. Things are arguably worse for the folks who used to be the only ones recording people in public.

AI enthusiasts anthropomorphize coding agents, so they are just another developer that is significantly cheaper. They still have to pay something, its just by the token instead of by the hour.

As far as that graph goes, that's mainly because of high interest rates putting pressure on zombie companies.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think doubling the number of developers every 10 years like we have since Alan Turing is sustainable. And yea, once management discovers they don't need a real person to vomit 1000 lines of mindless garbage boilerplate just to put a button on a web form, I agree.. a lot of people around here are gonna be unemployed. But I think thats probably a good thing for society, all told.

This is what people said about outsourcing in the 2000s. Turns out you have to actually have organizational knowledge about what your code actually does.

And that's not even getting into the legal aspect of what is gonna happen when the AI does something like making a car's computer cheat on emissions tests. At the end of the day, enterprises will need a real person to blame for this stuff.

Oh? Is that why mesa drivers don't "just work"? Interesting.

Is this a real question? Deep links work on windows, so a trivial way to make this work would be to put it on an oauth claim and just use the protocol as designed.

Laws are made to be broken.

Amzn leo was created in part to build themselves their own fast lane.

1. laws and ethics are not the same thing

2. this is irrelevant. This is true for every new technology.

3. The intent of a system is not the purpose of the system. The output of a system is its purpose. If the glasses help deaf people it doesn't matter if they intended it or not.

I understand we can't just come out and say that these glasses are problematic because they automate objectification. This nuance is just too hard for the averate netizen. All of these other side conversations about hidden cameras vs go-pros or whatever are a tangential issue. The problem with them is that they can immediately, with no effort, objectify anything in front of me, without any planning or forethought. Doesn't matter what it is. Women, men, children, pets, a fun night out, a funeral, a protest, motes of dust in a sunbeam shining on a newborn, etc. Everything can be instantly objectified, fixed to media, stored, traded, sold, collected, coveted, copied. It's especially problematic because that is the advertised purpose of it. To let you objectify all of the moments in your life, and everyone and everything around you.

Theres a recording indicator light that turns on when you are recording video.

What about them makes them worse than a go-pro or a body camera like what the cops wear. I don't have any of these devices and I don't understand what the fuss is about.

Follow the money. Its not that complicated.

If monopolies could charge more, they already would.

There will be zero overall impact because price is not set by the producer, its set by the market.

I feel like you are failing to grasp the fact that debt on one balance sheet is an investment that generates passive income on another. They do not want to pay down the debt. The last time they got in over their heads, they did the 90% tax bracket. Before you put hands to keyboard and type something about it not being enough to pay the debt, stop. Think for a moment. A top bracket with a 90% rate sends 50% of the debt service payment back to the treasury because the over half of the holders of the debt are in the top bracket.