And spray paint may be used for graffiti.

Bootleg records were a thing in Europe in the days of reel to reel tape as the only alternative. It wasn’t so much that people did it privately but people would try to make a buck through re-sale and especially on flea markets where oversight by the law was virtually nonexistent. Rare records have always been a thing. Bootleggers tried to profit off it.

I was bequeathed my parents’ record collection of about 200 LPs. One was a bootleg they kept, some rare Beatles stuff. Other ones were thrown away because the quality was bad or would have been deteriorating to a point where it became unlistenable.

How can you live anonymous? Off the grid maybe in a log hut in the woods. If you’re in a vehicle, you’ll need license plates. If you buy land there needs to be a name on the deed. You can obscure those maybe behind company names if you make the effort. But there will be a paper trail.

If you buy land, you might as well invest into a more comfy tiny house with solars on the roof and dig a nice pit for the toilet. Keep chicken and grow veggies or something.

Starbucks said it was “deeply sorry for an unacceptable marketing incident”

An unacceptable marketing incident? Like it was thrust upon them. Incidentally, by themselves. The language is baffling although I’m willing to accept it might have sounded less incidental in the original Korean.

Obvs this is very dumb, a bunch of executives are asleep at the wheel, and they probably deserve the 26% drop in revenue for it. The apology needs to be performative and this company-wide, revenue sacrificing history lesson is coincidentally good marketing, I imagine.

That being said, this isn’t really a FuckAI story. Sure, the model suggested a couple of things that only sound great if you’re ignorant of Korean history. But this isn’t a model breaking the sandbox and releasing all company secrets by accident. Or suggesting to help teenagers with ending their lives. This is first and foremost careless managerial conduct. They should have stopped the campaign and even might have if they had bothered to read the email attachments. This could’ve come from a historically ignorant ad agency as well. This is human error, not model madness.

Looking forward to the US Starbucks smashing caffeine explosion campaign that will surely bring the house down in September.

The “zero occupant problem”

The fact that this has a name is such an indictment of failures in urban planning. I’m going to assume an American coined the term because a lot of other places have not fought the idea of public transport as much as the American automobile industry.

There is an argument that a connected Borg collective of self driving cars would be capable of running vehicles with smaller gaps in between them, thus reducing congestion and improving efficiency in traffic.

Yet you created a new account here just to bitch about that. What does that make you? The petulent teenager?

I don’t think you’re teaching your kids not to lie. You are teaching your kids the situations the community you’re in has decided when it’s okay to lie and when not. We package this as this sort of absolute philosophy but it’s not. It’s very flexible and hard to navigate.

You have probably lied to your kid that you’re out of snacks or that you forgot to bring your wallet to buy more snacks. Or that Santa exists. Kids will eventually pick up on these things.

Define “worth it.” I think Mullvad is a tad expensive but for protection while surfing the web it’s a good service. And the fact that they take mail-in cash is unique.

You can just look for a pre-paid credit card wherever you are. You may have to sacrifice your name and number but you don’t have to wrestle with the post office.

What they think is wrong and is borne out of laziness and the misguided mass hysteria that this is the future. Other futures are available. Your phrasing of the question led me to believe you have absorbed the bs marketing of the peddlers of so-called AI. There is nothing efficient about it at present.

Don’t use it whenever you don’t get punished for it in school, i.e. people should know how to use it so it should be taught in schools. Along with how to spot mistakes and general media savvyness. Highlight the mistakes and shortcomings whenever possible. Stay away from people who need to ask a chat bot first before they do anything. Be the fucking salmon that swims upstream past lurching bears to get laid (and let’s say not die during or afterwards, to keep it light).

What does any of this have to do with “pure efficiency?” The alleged efficiency of these models is only on the user side of the equation. It can do things for you in milliseconds that would take you hours to do yourself. Except it doesn’t do this reliably and you need to double check its work a lot, which often negates any efficiency gains.

On the backend it’s tying up resources in chip making with negative knock-on effects for any other products needing chips, wasting drinking water because that’s cheaper then building circular cooling systems, cutting into any progress in switching to renewable energy sources and thus putting this planet in further peril, and it’s making people dumber overall because they feel they can outsource thinking to some juiced to spell checking algorithm.

Efficiency where?

The UK government is giving Apple and Google three months to build on-device scanning infrastructure.

Nothing has gone through parliament yet. That’s not to say that a majority of twats couldn’t be found there. But crucially I think this is not something a floundering PM can decree on his own authority. So far this threat is about as believable as any statement by the incumbent American president on Iran.

No.

The ruling isn’t final.

On that we are agreed. The headline speaks of a landmark ruling, which I think is too much acclaim for a decision a higher court could just dismiss.

I think my sniping at Bavaria speaks for itself.

They don’t need sway as much as money and lawyers, which I imagine they have. And this verdict is probably on the worst outcome end of the scale for them. I cannot imagine they will accept a ruling that calls them daft like this one does. They will try to water down liability for their model’s fantasy summaries. Whether they succeed is a different question. But they will try, so they will appeal, so this verdict isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Yet.

All I said is that this verdict isn’t effective yet. These headlines and sadly this article buries this fact in a sentence in the last paragraph. Blink and you miss it stuff. Lemmies tend to overlook this and declare victory over Google when this was merely the first battle of the war.

This isn’t final. Google has time to appeal. Let’s hold off on the label “landmark” until it reaches legal effectiveness. Which it probably won’t, however good a verdict by a German regional court, much less one based in Bavaria, this is in my opinion.

Google lawyers arguing in court that Google’s so-called AI results are shit anyways and people should know it is chef’s kiss.

“We will change the law” means they haven’t changed it yet. And this PM is so god damn popular in his own party, they are just trying to get his possible replacement in in an otherwise unnecessary byelection. This sounds decisive but isn’t a fait accompli by any stretch of the imagination. The tech big guns will sound amenable to such a policy but will do fuck all.

Even for a non-bank website, I imagine there is an octogenarian federal judge somewhere in the States who is still puzzled by fax machines who made a ruling holding website owners liable if they didn’t do this when they know of any vulnerability that could affect the user. So there is a possible legal angle as well.

The people who use browsers other than the ones listed will either never see this message or know how to upgrade on their own.

I think this is not a clean cut case of evil planned obsolescence. There are valid security concerns, as browsers are a common attack vector. You should get that updated, also to protect your privacy while surfing online. So for a banking site or similar, I kind of get it. (I recognize there is a possible conundrum when people can’t go bank in person because the bank no longer has branches and/or get excluded by their old hardware/economic reasons from doing it online. Should they be able to choose risking it if the bank knows about a flaw they then leave exposed? Shit’s complicated.)

That being said I’m sure this banner of corporate concern was not primarily motivated by the security and privacy of their users.