narinxas

they already signed it over when their for-profit subsidiary made a deal with Microsoft

just in time for nobody to really care about programming because LLMs are so good at translation and all computer code and programing are a subfield of linguistics...

I'm neither obscuring nor revealing a truth becuase these events are ongoing.

and I'm being quick and lose with the use of words. facebook cannot merge with microsoft because facebook is a subsidiary of meta corporation.

but on the level of analysis i'm trying to think in, google's antitrust case agaisnt their government (which is done), microsoft's recent purchase of activision blizzard (which was almost undone but got through in the end) all have a hand in this.

who will win more out of this? microsoft? or google/alphabet??

facebook does seem like a smaller player, microsoft OWNS gaming now (specially after blizzard-activision).

but Meta is very insterested in gaming technology. so maybe they can also "poach" some talent now that openAI is all but publically bankrupt??

how long ago did Meta try to do their own crypto "Libra"? fact of the matter LLMs are chinese tech. else tiktok would have been successfully stopped. why did all this happen after chinese visit due to a trade union in south asia?

finally, I know of 3 giant corporations that have repeated the re-structuring which from my viewpoint was pioneered by google/alphabet. one is facebook/meta, and the other is a chinese company (alibaba?) I don't even know this which is ok because I am ranting on the internet in a buried discussion in a public forum

no, I did say "literal alphabet" i.e. not some bigger corporation...

but I play with words, so take it as you are able

i'm saying something closer to: if microsoft merges with facebook, then they really are both trying to get bought by google's parent entity

is the type of wealth that makes land be worth more in some places than in others

this gets really difficult when consdiering that the same unit of wealth also prices food, AND gambling

so who has (owns, can build) LLMs-sized datacenters?

doesn't facebook (i.e. Meta) have their own infrastructure???

my "high level" view of this: the letter M (microsoft xOr meta) fighting for the ONE spot in the literal "alphabet" (google)

well, tuta's business model seem to boil down to "vendor lock in"

I say this as a paying customer, but I'll admit I haven't decided how I feel about the new plans (as announced together with the name change) so maybe my opinion is outdated

well, tuta's business model seem to boil down to "vendor lock in" (from my viewpoint, I pay for their service and I haven't decided how I feel about the new plans so maybe my opinion is outdated)

money is a manifestation of (collective) energy

combined conceptually with "that which has andor holds most value" where value is a dynamic concept whose precise meaning (significance) changes

I think you misspelled "predicated"

but I don't even know... predicted xOR predicAted

there are much cheaper ways, chief amongst them is to use paper and pencils

one man's luxury...

how did you learn to program computers without computers around?

i'm just exactly at that "moment in life" where it's either 'make' money (i.e. collect it from others using trade) or recieve welfare (ask for donations, beg on the streets, call parents...)

I'm asking a question without an answer

the more people out there that write, the less writtings by people are worth

scarcity never creates value, but it always incresases it

but also: the more pople have written, the cheaper text and AI bot training become

which makes me feel in a funny situation, the more I write, the better I get at it, but it also makes it simpler for AIs bots to learn my style and make it worthless by the inverse-scarcity phenomenon

you're ignoring my point, well.. not exactly "ignoring", more like explaining how and why the issue I was critizicing is completely irrelevant from where you stand

however, thanks to all this dialogue, do see where my own critizicism goes amiss; and for that, thanks a lot.

Number "one" is invented. Zero is discovered

the circle is invented, the value of PI is discovered

it's the political principles I'm critizicing.

the technical problem is really essentially a matter of trust, blockchains solved this problem in the technical sense.

the opreations of large organization are typically private property... this is a touchy issue because technology corporations are essentially the government by this point

I guess I should be glad this isn't really my problem, I'm just worried about the public and political consequences of what I see as potentially dangerous mistakes being made on the idelogical level

every major business company has also done this for the USA... not just tech companies

so I agree, business as usual

firefox and being able to compile it on you machine may do the trick for a little while

but policy decisions aren't like technical ones.... principles are at play at every layer above the strictly-technical discussion

to them who find this comment exagerated (hyperbollic?)

there are things that through symbolism come to signify life-or-death scenario across different contexts (i.e. life or dead of what-exactly?)

these "ad-tech" wars aren't about technology as much as they (really) are about (the future?) of user freedom.

freedom is the key word (symbol) which links this difficult real world contest into the nuclear leagues

but what does this mean in terms of VISA vs MasterCard?

this is an instance of the mistake of putting safety first, before health.

if safety is more important than health, that means that it is ok to shoot first and ask questions later

interesting,,,

you say it's "peoples"... but this made me realize it is also entire animal species... most mammalian animals alive today are either human or death, most exceptions are famous species......

they know technology very well

but their elders have given it all away

david vs goliath is a lesson that better technology wins wars

but keep in mind that "the truth" is the first casuality of war

from the other side:

"in order to unify people, give them a common enemy"

reminds me of my own opinion that a lot of what goes on in academia, along other 'dynastic' systems of lineage-tracking, apprentice-master chains, IN large institutional settings (groups)

I think there's a lot of collective trauma (i.e. abuse) that is transferred from group of elder to the next group.

the idea is how this is similar to parent-child abuse "chains"... to summ up, in the psychologist's phrase: "either repeat your trauma or fix it" but with the added complexity that this is happening to entire groups of people traumatizing and insisting on repeating (passing on) trauma to the next younger group "because that's what they do" or some other weak excuse. the kind of excuse that psychology (taken as one whole field) solved for the individual personality.

however, the complexity pulls the problem beyond the field of psychology, and into something which also involves sociology and possibly anthropology, to say the least

my point has very little to do with process

it seems to me that you're arguing back that SBOMs are just a list, so how can it be a big deal?

my point is an issue about the whole reality of needing SBOMs. clearly they have something to do with supply chain trust. but I think your perspective is focused too closely on the engineering aspects of the problem.

I find that the technical realities (all of which I understand to be, in the end, some kind of engineering decision) that motivate having to share vulnerabilities of all components without revealing their designs sources (of either software, hardware, both, or neither) to be morally dubious.

so keeping in mind that hardware, by this point, is stored as code so it's code, and software also has a source code, I find it necessary by this point to open source all the things!!1!

but what I am really wondering about is how much money (if any) was the vulnerability worth up the moment when google also discovered this?

so let me rephrase my original comment using more text

I see them "bending over backwards" to protect their right to keep an advantage to use, if they deem it necessary, against any one else.

this is why they go to such lengths to avoid publishing what they consider to be "the secret sauce".

as I see things, that they even came up with the notion of a "software bill of materials" is a bit disingenious from my perspective. already the concept is obscure and lends itself (in my opinion) to shading, hiding, and occulting the software source code and (or) the hardware designs (as appropiate)

finally, I consider that the concept of "SBOM" (which TIL existed) is designed with the intentions I already mentioned: to occult information (anti-open) for the sake of keeping a perceived advantage (pro-centralization)