Since all our local markets have introduced handheld scanners, I don't even bring my bags in. I put everything in the cart barcode up, get to the checkout, scan everything, pay, and go.
When I get to the car I unload into the bags. I'm sure it's not a thing for everyone, but I feel like I'm cutting out a fair bit of shuffling.
I get the impression that the 'handheld scanner' may be tethered to the till (like in B&Q) rather than one you can carry round with you (like Sainsbury's/Asda/Tesco)
I think what might happen is all these other markets are going to end up “playing fair” while the US remains an abused ecosystem- because it’ll be the only place left Apple and Google can push their advantage.
I think if we'd had a "normal" administration, this probably would have been pushed by the US government. The US services have been gunning for this for decades. But we have an administration that seems extremely disjointed in what it wants to do and why it wants to do it. I'm kind of curious about the internal conversations that must be happening on the other side of 5-eyes nations services as they're trying to accomplish their ends with such an unpredictable ally.
For better or for worse, JD Vance is extremely online, and no one in his cryptocurrency-hoarding right-libertarian tweetsphere thinks government backdoors are a good idea.
I don't think there is much disjoint if you see Trump as a fairly clean break with the cold-war era GOP. The thing is that no one in the US remembers the cold war with pride. The left thinks the cold war was US imperialism. The right kind of agrees, and has moved on to other issues anyways. And Europe nudges, saying: "Hey, you're America. You love fighting cold wars! Remember?"
Too many Europeans are Chomsky-brained and believe that US foreign policy is controlled by the CIA. The reality is that US grand strategy is incoherent and has been for decades. The US doesn't have any actual strategic imperatives at the moment, and it's being pulled in too many different directions. I believe George Friedman argues that this is a recurring pattern in US history, where US foreign policy alternates between listlessness, and maniac focus on some objective (most recently in the wake of 9/11).
This is an incomplete thought, but a friend of mine has this idea around reputation built through a sort-of key signing. You get a key, your friend gets a key, you sign each other's keys. The key can serve as an indicator of trust, or validity that an individual's contributions are meaningful (or something). And if your friend suddenly turns into a corporate shill, you could revoke that trust. And if the people haven't established their own trust with that person, their trust goes when yours does. Transitive trust.
It obviously has some flaws, and could be gamed in the right circumstances, but I think it's an interesting idea.
Sounds like following people on a social media platform and only reading posts from in your network. Which is exactly how most people I know use Bluesky.
It works better than Twitter's algorithmic feed but it's still not foolproof because not everyone has the same idea of what sort of content they are willing to trust/ track.
My iPhone 12 Mini's camera just broke (the zoom is failing..) I have been poking around for any solution that is around the same size. The best answer is generally never-heard-of companies that pop new phone models out and no certainty as to how long they'll last or be supported. That's on top of having to switch platforms (again).
I'm resigned to getting a new iPhone in Sept - reluctantly.
The hardest part about inevitablism here is that the people who are making the argument this is inevitable are the same people who are the people who are shoveling hundreds of millions of dollars into it. Into the development, the use, the advertisement. The foxes are building doors into the hen houses and saying there’s nothing to be done, foxes are going to get in so we might as well make it something that works for everyone.
It can be. A week or two back there was a blog post on here about someone using an AI tool and being wowed by how effective it was, and it was only in the comments that it emerged that they worked for an AI company.
It's a good thing in a world where the pot of money is so small it doesn't influence what it's betting on, it's a bad thing when you're talking about Zuckerberg or Lehman Brothers, because when they decide to put their money on strange financial investments they just make reality and regardless how stupid in the long run we're going down with the ship for at least a decade or so
i believe its patently bad when it comes to AI.
1) it could create an economic bubble if the only people interested in LLMs are LLM providers (unlikely scenario though)
the real issue is 2) deepfakes and the end of "authentic video". Let me explain.
Now, bearing in mind that most of us can still recognize a Veo 3 clip instantly, generative AI videos are getting better and better, and soon old people will be seeing clips on facebook of presidential candidates telling them not to vote, or that they're satan worshippers, or something, i don't know.
But here's the key - video AI takes a lot of resources. A text GPT can reasonably be run on a researcher's computer with a good GPU. Could the videos that look 90% real be done without billions of dollars of investment from Google and OpenAI? No.
When there are AI political ads on the TV and Google or Meta or some other AI company is decrying these or lobbying against them and saying "Veo is meant for good! We didn't intend for it to be used this way! Read the TOS!", remember they're the ones who enabled it.
TL;DR Google put billions into Video AI to create a product worth buying, that product is a threat to democracy and rational thought and probably wouldn't exist without their investment. QED, not inevitable.
Except "the money" in this case is just part of funds distributed around by the super rich. The saying works better when it's about regular people actually taking risks and making sacrifices.
One of the mild tragedies of my youth is that when we switched from the Macintosh SE/30 to the IIci, my MacPaint art didn't make the transition. My dad told me that the files were incompatible. I don't think that's actually true, but I didn't know enough at that age to be able to question it or even explore it. There are many many creations throughout first half of my life that are lost for a lack of storage space at the time.
As an aside: Do your best to capture at least something in a way that will be preserved.
> I have found that there are people who just want to watch the world burn. There are many reasons, but, at its most basic, hurt people hurt people.
I'm not sure that it's even malicious. I think many hackers look at a website or a service as a game to play. They aren't thinking so far as the person that this action affects, just as far as "I wonder if I could get all the data off that site?" or something similar. And on top of that, some view the rate-limiting as a challenge.
I think it's the same thing that drives the excessive snark or cruelty in comments. They don't think of the person on the other end as a person, they think of them as an endpoint.
