passwordoops

I think you're exaggerating a bit.

Does this answer your question?

/s

Like most things in life, moderation is key

You just gotta choose the right pixel

Yeah not seeing it for technical writing. Especially in industries with even a hint of regulatory compliance, the imprecision is too significant. It's not for lack of trying or wishful thinking.

Either your colleagues are facing stiffer competition off-shore (not LLM driven) or their jobs were more about organizing, checking and sorting topics and data (LLMs can take that away)

You are one person. The corporation is not. Scale matters

LLM's were obviously going be ruined by two factors:

1- LLM Crawler Optimization: the new SEO

2- Weightings-For-Pay: for a fee have your product or service come up more frequently in associated answers

More like how using hand-held computers programmed for dopamine hits could further entrench a sedentary lifestyle, reduce social cohesion, and lead to individual brain rot

Amazingly ironic that the administration most deeply in bed to the finance sector's bidding is now identifying the result of the finance sector's 50 year push to offshore everything a problem for National security

"The company’s marketable equity securities include $80 billion in shares subject to short-term restrictions and $14.1 billion subject to long-term restrictions"

Actually more like $14.1 and whatever value the other $80 is worth when they sell. Which is probably going to be worth well North of whatever is lost on the $14.1 B long-term... All part of the scam to inflate the value of the AI bubble

Care to elaborate?

Like the ones constantly advertising across Google's plethora of platforms without any repercussions or possibility of recourse with Google? For my safety, of course.

Faced with a full-length pop-up saying they care about my privacy just made me think, "if you cared about my privacy, you wouldn't track me and therefore wouldn't need ny consent for anything"

Anecdotal and loosely related, but I can say since Gemini was forced into Gmail, much more obvious SPAM passes the filter

Depends who's observing

How far back do you have to go for Microsoft to be seen as "good" the way Google was?

IP/BigCo lawyers are probably the main lobbyists behind this article in the bill so I would think soonish

Because it's the correct take

Microsoft Restarting would be more fitting

This makes the most sense

If there was no merger/takeover and you need to add "formerly" to the brand name, you should keep the original branding

Because at some point it won't be opt in

Most bribes are

You can't discount the impact this will have on global stock markets and what that may do to both individuals and, more importantly, pension funds, as a large swath of people are retiring

You're partially correct in RTO being about control. Sunk costs in real estate and local tax benefits pay a significant role.

But if every company decided "you know what? Let's go remote!", it will be a matter of months, if not weeks, before every CFO/CEO/Board decides to boost profits by tapping the global talent pool.

The recent delusions to replace software engineers with LLMs is a pretty good indication of where the thinking is vis-a-vis capable engineering

"A recent analysis by the company found that there are “over 50 times more malware from internet-sideloaded sources than on apps available through Google Play.”

Ok, but what's the real damage? In other words, how many installs and how much money siphoned from users and legit apps?

I think that's what the comment meant. Take it metaphorically

Criminal liability with a minimum 2 years served for executives and fines amounting to 110% of total global revenue to the company that allowed the breach would see cybersecurity taken a lot more seriously in a hurry

The other issue is people seeing corn for ethanol (especially subsidized) can be waaaay more profitable and deciding to switch crops. Not only do you lose a potentially valuable food crop. But it's replaced by one of the nutrient and GHG intensive crops around

"Biofuels in use, keep atmospheric carbon neutral."

No they do not. The accounting generally doesn't take into account the full emissions of agriculture, which for corn is particularly carbon intense. Not to mention the downstream pollution impacts of over fertilization, such as coastal dead zones