It’s a tiny amount, but it sets an important precedent. Not only Air Canada, but every company in Canada is now going to have to follow that precedent. It means that if a chatbot in Canada says something, the presumption is that the chatbot is speaking for the company.

It would have been a disaster to have any other ruling. It would have meant that the chatbot was now an accountability sink. No matter what the chatbot said, it would have been the chatbot’s fault. With this ruling, it’s the other way around. People can assume that the chatbot speaks for the company (the same way they would with a human rep) and sue the company for damages if they’re misled by the chatbot. That’s excellent for users, and also excellent to slow down chatbot adoption, because the company is now on the hook for its hallucinations, not the end-user.

Google became crap shortly after their company name became a synonym for online searches. When you don’t have competitors, you don’t have to work as hard to provide search results – especially if you’re actively paying Apple not to come up with their own search engine, Firefox to maintain Google as their default search engine, etc. IMO AI has been the shiny new thing they’re interested in as they continue to neglect search quality, but it wasn’t responsible for the decline of search quality.

Yeah, this is why polling is hard.

Online polls are much more likely to be answered by people who like to answer polls than people who don’t. People who use Duck Duck Go are much more likely to be privacy-focused, knowledgeable enough to use a different search engine other than the default, etc.

This is also an echo chamber (The Fediverse) discussing the results of a poll on another similar echo chamber (Duck Duck Go). You won’t find nearly as many people on Lemmy or Mastodon who love AI as you will in most of the world. Still, I do get the impression that it’s a lot less popular than the AI companies want us to think.

I mean, that’s such a broad take, any system can change, doesn’t mean it’s inevitable

It also doesn’t mean that they’re all the same system. So, if capitalism is one of the many systems that can backslide into authoritarianism doesn’t mean that authoritarianism is a part of capitalism, despite your claim to the contrary.

We have had systems of feudalism and monarchies that have stayed steady for hundreds of years. In pre history, people lived in communes for thousands of years.

Yes, in the modern world things change much more quickly. Technologies didn’t change for thousands of years. That meant that the number of people a farmer or a plot of land could feed stayed constant for thousands of years. That meant the maximum size of a city was pretty constant. That dictated the kinds of governments that were stable.

It was technology that has made systems unstable, not capitalism.

You’re claiming that if capitalism tends to backslide into X, then X is part of capitalism. My point is that every system can backslide into something more primitive where a strong man makes the rules. They’re not all the same, so your idea that X is an inevitable part of capitalism is wrong. Capitalism is what we call it when it has a certain set of characteristics. If it no longer has those characteristics it’s no longer capitalism.

I’m claiming that capitalism in particular is one of the most corruptible systems

And you’re wrong. There’s nothing about capitalism that makes it more corruptible than feudalism or oligarchy. In fact, those systems are much more corrupt in general.

It tries to harness the power of greed and turn it into positive sum games

Whereas feudalism doesn’t even try to do that. It just skips the positive sum games part and accepts greed. At least with capitalism there’s an attempt to make things better.

I think greed driving society maximizes corruption

Maximizes corruption? You think capitalism is more corrupt than a strong man system where everybody is forced to constantly flatter and pay tribute to the strong man? A system where the rules are whatever the strong man says, so bribery is baked into everything?

think we should replace that with something else

Sure, let’s do it, what do you propose? And how do we get there from here?

Nothing is inevitable. Backsliding is always common. Most forms of government tend to backslide towards a strong-man at the top who is above the law. This is exactly what’s happening with the American democratic republic that was previously a mix of capitalism and socialism. That doesn’t mean that a strong man is a natural element of capitalism or democracy or republics or socialism or capitalism. It’s that a strong man who’s above the law is a common feature of human communities.

Pretty much every form of government that allows for more participation by the people being governed tries to put constraints on the rulers. The US called theirs “checks and balances”. The British started with the Magna Carta.

It’s like saying you like playing monopoly but then after all the properties are bought out you turn around and say it’s no longer monopoly.

You’re talking about monopoly, the board game, previously called “the landlord’s game”, a game designed to teach about the dangers of monopolies?

It’s not baffling when you realize that there are only 2 remaining car manufacturers in the US, and fewer than 20 worldwide.

Look at the number of car companies established just in 1900:

• Auburn: 1900 to 1937
• California Automobile Company: 1900 to 1902
• Massachusetts Steam Wagon Company: 1900 to 1901
• Dodge: 1900 to 1928
• Friedman Automobile Company: 1900 to 1903
• …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Vehicle_manufacturing_companies_established_in_1900

When there are only 2 manufacturers in a space, it’s no surprise if they ignore certain consumers. If there were a hundred different manufacturers like there were in the early 1900s, then there would almost certainly be someone offering something closer to what you want.

For example, instead of a lever to flush, you get a button. If the software isn’t up to date, the button won’t work.

But then they have the audacity to FORCE us all into it by outright destroying anything else

That’s because there’s no competition. Capitalism requires competition. Adam Smith thought it was the job of the state to step in and ensure that monopolies were broken up so that capitalism could work.

You cannot buy a good car anymore

There are only 2 US car manufacturers, 3 if you want to count Tesla.

rolling malware that is unfixable by the user

Because they’re weaponizing section 1201 of the DMCA to prevent people from competing with them.

What you hate isn’t capitalism, it’s that you can’t even get capitalism because the government refuses to regulate businesses. For capitalism to work, the state has to ensure that there’s healthy competition in the marketplace. But, when there’s competition a rich person who owns capital might lose. So, a rich person much prefers feudalism or a corporatocracy to capitalism.

My grandmother had an incandescent light bulb in her house that had been there since the early 1900s and still worked. But, compared to modern bulbs it was pretty dim, used very thick glass, and was pretty overbuilt. Modern incandescent bulbs are not built to last. They’re brighter, and they’re cheaper, but not as durable.

Looking at the picture, I wonder if modern panels will last the same way.

Solar panels in the 1980s were big, inefficient, chonky things. If they weren’t hand assembled, they sure looked hand-assembled.

Modern solar cells are much more efficient and clearly machine assembled. They use much finer wires, which might be more fragile:

It wouldn’t surprise me if part of the trade off to get cells that have double the efficiency at half the price you also have to give up on some durability.

Not every big change is necessarily something you can meaningfully break up into small changes. Sometimes when you could break it up into small changes, you have to change its structure in a meaningful way to half-implement it and test out that half-version. It takes experience to know when it’s best to get the whole structure expressed it code, then to go back and tweak it based on any compiler errors. Most of the time the compiler errors are very minor things like a typo, so you don’t lose any meaningful time fixing them.

Small change and run works for small ideas. Sometimes you have a big idea that’s hard to break down into small chunks.

The mail (a web service), the calendar (a web service), YouTube (web videos), YouTube Music (web music), Google Maps (a web based mapping service)…

You get the picture.

Android spies on you when you’re doing things locally on the device. But, the rest of these are web-based services.

Most programmers I know compile a program when they have fully expressed an idea they have in their heads. It might just be the first outline of the idea. But, it’s a solid first sketch that contains all the key details. Unfortunately, often that’s a complex idea so it can be somewhere on the order of an hour before they stop coding and try compiling. One reason for that is that compiling the program is a context switch, and when they context switch they can’t keep all of their thoughts about the program in their head, instead they have to think about compiling. And, if compiling takes more than a few seconds their attention also starts to drift to other things.

Coding for something like an hour without making a single typo or braino is difficult. This is especially true if the programmer is attempting to express a creative idea. Their focus won’t be on getting every single detail correct, it will be in sketching the shape of the idea as completely as possible. 99% of the time, those mistakes are entirely obvious and take no time to fix. But the compiler is (luckily) unforgiving of errors, even if the fix is obvious. But, that’s why it’s suspicious if the code compiles perfectly the first time.

It’s possible that some people have different workflows. Maybe they write out the entire program in comments and pseudocode before using an actual programming language. If you do that, then you can probably afford to take a break from the actual coding more often and compile what you have so far. Maybe you’re compiling every 5 minutes instead of every 30, in which case it’s pretty normal not to have any compiler errors. Maybe some people use a super advanced IDE that effectively compiles the code in the background all the time and flags errors that will become compiler errors. I think a lot of people who became programmers before that kind of thing was popular find that sort of thing to be distracting. If they’re trying to write something on line 50 and the IDE flags something from line 45, they might have already shifted their context a bit, and having to go back and fix that will distract them from the thing they’re currently trying to express.

Personally, I’ve often had no compiler errors when writing tests. Tests are often very small, self-contained bits of code that don’t take long to write, and aren’t very complex, so it’s pretty normal to have a test compile and run perfectly the first time.

The point is, programmers who have been programming for a long time are the ones who are more likely to be surprised if their code compiles perfectly the first time.

Anyone who doesn’t complain about code not compiling on the first try likely writes dead simple programs and could be replaced by an LLM. Writing simple programs is easy, writing complex programs is hard.

Taiwan is presumably red because if Taiwan was green China would be red. So, the WHO just sighs and goes “ok, Taiwan, would you mind accepting ‘observer status’ or something?”, and Taiwan’s rep just sighs too and says, “sure, we get it.”

Mainly because if he even managed to collect 5% of the actual value of the jewels he stole, he’s now got generational wealth in Ecuador. Why bother?

It bans some versions of this, but it can’t ban all of it. The obvious way is fully banned and hard to get away with: pay someone to delete unflattering things about you on Wikipedia. But, you can do a much more costly, slower, but much more likely to be acceptable version: you can buy a newspaper and arrange for that newspaper to write flattering articles about you. Since those articles qualify as a primary source, you can then have someone update Wikipedia to include things from that article using the article as a primary source. That doesn’t delete the unflattering things, but it pushes them down the page and surrounds them by flattering things. If you’re a billionaire, you’ll find a way to get the articles edited in a way that is permitted by the Wikipedia rules.

there’s always at least one guy who’d hyperfocus on monitoring something like this

That’s the thing, there’s only about 3000 billionaires worldwide, but 8 billion other people. Let’s say out of those 8 billion, there are maybe 20 who really, really hate Bill Gates. All it takes to undermine all Bill Gates’ attempts to launder his reputation is for a few of those 20 to keep an eye on his Wikipedia page in their spare time, and challenge any changes that try to whitewash his reputation.

Trickle down economics doesn’t work well, but at least this causes a trickle down effect. Gates spends millions with PR firms to keep his reputation clean, including vandalizing Wikipedia. Those PR firm employees are unethical assholes, but they’re not billionaires. Gates (indirectly) pays their wages. These PR firm assholes then spend Gates’ money to buy BMWs and prostate massagers. That ends up trickling down to car mechanics and massager manufacturers.

So, every time you edit Wikipedia with unflattering but true information about billionaires and middle eastern oil states, you’re causing some wealth to leak out of the billionaires’ pockets as they fight to contain that information. And you can do this damage while just sitting on a toilet.

I don’t think anybody, other than maybe high-school kids, thought Wikipedia was some perfect site with no flaws. Even with these flaws, it’s really an amazing achievement and deserves massive amounts of praise.

Just compare it to what came before: Encyclopaedia Britannica and the like. Wikipedia is estimated to be about 95x bigger than Encyclopedia Britannica. So, it goes more in depth on almost everything, and has orders of magnitude more articles than Britannica had. And, do you think Britannica didn’t face pressure to not publish controversial or unflattering information on rich people? It was probably much, much easier for the rich to get things their way when it was a single, for-profit publisher, rather than a worldwide group of volunteers. And then there’s the issue with being factual or having a neutral point of view. That’s always going to be a challenge, but it’s much more likely there will be systemic bias for an American-owned for-profit company than it is for a volunteer-based non-profit with editors worldwide.

Also, the way Wikipedia works, it’s much harder for these PR firms to completely hide things they don’t like. Nearly all of Wikipedia’s edit history is easily visible just by clicking a link on the page you’re reading. If someone removed something unflattering, you can often find it just by going through the edits. It would be nice if the rich couldn’t adjust the main pages, but at least it’s extremely hard for them to make unflattering information completely disappear just due to how the editing process for Wikis works.

Finally, paid PR professionals can’t just edit whatever they like. Wikipedia editors are notoriously proud of what they do, and annoyed at seeing their site vandalized. Often edits will be rolled back, or pages will be locked. Eventually a billionaire might get what they want, but to get a fact changed on Wikipedia they’ll probably need to pay a reputable news site to make a counter claim, then have one of their paid PR flacks to use that news article as a primary source to allow it to be used on Wikipedia. That’s an expensive and fragile process. Do it too often and you damage the reputation of the news site so it can no longer be used for that kind of thing. And, all it takes to undo that is a good journalist doing their job and reporting the truth and a volunteer Wikipedia editor updating the page.

So, don’t lose hope, just think that billionaires are spending millions to try to launder their reputations, and often those attempts are being undone by some girl in sweatpants casually updating Wikipedia on her phone while she binges Critical Role.