Kid: I forgot.
Me: You need to work on remembering things a bit better.
Kid: Well somebody told me that as you get older you can’t remember things as well.
Me: Not at 7 years old!
Kid: Well maybe you told me and you just don’t remember.

To be fair, they haven’t stopped using hard language either. They released a statement after his “you won’t have to vote ever again” rambling with very direct warnings about how dangerous he is and has been. “Weird” is just another line of attack, hoping to cut in a way that might resonate with some more than the (imo rightful) high stakes talk.

My understanding of the ruling is that, no, a law cannot do this. The ruling is mostly a separation of powers argument. Basically, if the president is not above the law then that means that Congress can override the Constitution by writing a law that, for example, makes the President’s constitutional duties illegal. Therefore, the president is allowed to officially do anything he wants limited only by the Constitution.

Obligatory: this is not an endorsement of the ruling and IANAL. It’s an awful ruling and terrible for the present and future of our country. It’s a violation of primary ideals of democracy and it needs to be overturned ASAP.

Harris is not the country’s leader yet. She is likely to be selected as the candidate by the Democratic party, but ultimately the party is a private organization that can do basically whatever it wants to select that candidate. That’s not fascism. That’s freedom of association. In the end, nobody has to vote for the Democrats nor the Republicans. Anybody can be on the ballot with enough popular support, no party needed.

Parties hold primaries because, ultimately, they need votes to win an election and primaries help gauge the people who will be voting. At the time of the primaries, the voters still overwhelmingly selected Biden. But in the time since, polls show large majorities of those voters support both Biden’s departure and Harris as the replacement. So this is still likely the right move if the party is trying to appeal to the public.

It does and they’re kinda weird (if you’re used to more like Java-style interfaces). It flips the dependency between the interface and implementor on its head. Worth looking it up, it’s interesting.

C is just a work around for B and the fact that the technology has no way to identify and overcome harmful biases in its data set and model. This kind of behind the scenes prompt engineering isn’t even unique to diversifying image output, either. It’s a necessity to creating a product that is usable by the general consumer, at least until the technology evolves enough that it can incorporate those lessons directly into the model.

And so my point is, there’s a boatload of problems that stem from the fact that this is early technology and the solutions to those problems haven’t been fully developed yet. But while we are rightfully not upset that the system doesn’t understand that lettuce doesn’t go on the bottom of a burger, we’re for some reason wildly upset that it tries to give our fantasy quasi-historical figures darker skin.

I mean “taking pictures of people who are smiling” is definitely a bias in our culture. How we collectively choose to record information is part of how we encode human biases.

I get what you’re saying in specific circumstances. Sure, a dataset that is built from a single source doesn’t make its biases universal. But these models were trained on a very wide range of sources. Wide enough to cover much of the data we’ve built a culture around.

This is the thing. There’s an incredible number of inaccuracies in the picture, several of which flat out ignore the request in the prompt, and we laugh it off. But the AI makes his skin a little bit darker? Write the Washington Post! Historical accuracy! Outrage!

I was just thinking cartoon dicks lol

The joke is that the whole world could go to sleep/wake up/work at the exact same time, day or night.

DVDs (how many people even still own a player?) are not a real alternative to streaming for a number of reasons. Nor is “just watch something else on another platform.” Or, at least, if your claim is that entertainment is interchangeable then you’ve got no real complaint about YouTube. Hell, YouTube has its own ad-free subscription. By your own logic, the ads can’t be enshittificantion because you can just pay more to avoid it!

The enshittification of Netflix goes beyond just charging more. It’s any decision the company makes to make the user experience worse so they can make more money. That’s things like hiding your list and your recently watched shows so they can make you scroll through more recommendations. So then they can autoplay the content they stuck in your way. Recommendations that, like YouTube, are more concerned with what they want to monetize than what you actually want. And it’s restricting the way you used to be able to use the service, like on multiple TVs even within the same house, to get you to wade through a bunch of payment plans.

But my point still stands. Enshittification doesn’t require them to become a monopoly and start producing nothing but reality TV. It just describes the strategy shift that these companies inevitably make from making the platform better to attract more users, to making it worse to extract more money from the user base they’ve built up.

Eh, people have their own tastes in TV. Streaming companies buy exclusive rights to certain content and if that’s where your tastes lie, you’re pretty SOL. It’s about as close to “lock-in” as you can get.

Your definition of enshittificantion is also far too strict. It’s just the shift that companies inevitably make from trying to attract new users quickly by providing a great service, to trying to extract maximum profit by degrading the service quality and cramming in as much revenue generation as they can.

I wouldn’t be perturbed at Ben & Jerry’s for avoiding the state lol. I’d be perturbed at the people we elected to write those laws.

If a state passes a law saying “All ice cream must be free.” don’t be surprised if all ice cream producers refuse to do business in the state, leaving the people there with no ice cream. Some rules are just stupid and the legislature needs to be cognizant of the consequences. They brought it upon themselves.

Like I said, call it whatever you want. It’s still stupid.

Sure lol. Plenty of Republicans have blamed Antifa. But call it what you want, left wing plot, deep state plot, whatever. Whatever it is, it must be a master class in false flag operations considering it played right into everything that Trump had been broadcasting, desiring, and preparing for. They got him to play right along, vocally support the rioters, and withhold any assistance for the targets? Truly the greatest conspiracy of all time.

So this was a left wing plot and for the first several hours, as Republicans begged Trump to do literally anything and he refused, he was actually doing what in your mind? Fighting a hidden battle against the deep state? All evidence suggests that Trump was more than OK with what was happening as it furthered his goals and supported his many other schemes of fraud, deception, and intimidation in order to remain in power.

Which one is important is going to depend on the context for sure.

If it’s an open source library, they probably won’t care about 1.

If you’re working on internal software used by other developers within the company, management probably really does care about 1 because it’s going to impact their timelines.

If you’re working on a proprietary user-facing API, then even if it doesn’t cost your company anything management might still care because it could piss off valuable customers.

I think that, for what ever decision OP is trying to make, looking at that context is more important than quibbling over what exactly constitutes a “breaking change.”