Rottcodd

As I just noted on another response, mostly it was that I came up with a delicious turn of phrase and couldn't not post it. And yes, while broadly I think that Google deserves every bit of shit that's thrown their way and more - that they could vanish from the face of the Earth tomorrow and the internet could only benefit - this particular incident really isn't a good example.

I have to admit that I was so pleased with that turn of phrase when it came to me that I went ahead and posted it in spite of the fact that this specific incident doesn't appear to be a good example.

It's really sort of amazing how few years it took to go from "Do no evil" to "Don't even bother pretending not to."

Axiomatically, no, since it isn't even AI in any meaningful sense of the term, so it fails to live up to its hype right out the gate.

Undoubtedly.

And that in no way contradicts, or even really addresses, my point, which is not about overall expenses, but about the distribution of them - the portion that goes to employee wages vs. the portion that goes to executive compensation packages.

They thought by raising wages, owners would cut into their own bottom lines.

I don't think anyone actually thought that.

They're simply making the point that the problem is not the wages paid to the employees, as you imply, but the obscene salaries paid to executives and franchisees.

That the American execurives and franchisees are not going to take the necessary steps to correct that problem pretty much goes without saying, but that doesn't in any way change the fact that that is the problem

TikTok doesn't engage in speech at all. TikTok is s platform on which people engage in speech. Those people include Americans.

So TikTok being legally considered a person or not, having rights or not and so on is irrelevant, since TikTok's nominal rights aren't being violated in the first place. The rights of the Anerican people are the ones that would be violated - they are the ones whose freedom of speech would be restricted.

IANAL but I presume that's the argument they're using - that when they say that it's a violation of the first amendment, what they mean is not that it violates their supposed freedom of speech, but that it violates our inalienable freedom of speech (as it in fact, and obviously, does).

So... aren't these wannabe twitter competitors going about the whole thing bass-ackwards?

I saw a broadly similar article the other day about some sort of shakeup in the Mastodon board of directors.

It's as if they think the way do do an internet startup is to first appoint a board of directors and hire a raft of executives, then... um... you know... um... do some business... kinda... stuff....

I guarantee that the ADA works for whoever is the biggest source of revenue, and thus the biggest funder of executive salaries.

That's just how it is in a system of hierarchical organizations. The executive positions inevitably come to be held by people who have come to hold those positions because they were the most willing and able to do absolutely whatever it takes to fight and claw and scheme and backstab their way into them. And those people not only aren't inclined to serve any interest other than their own - they necessarily aren't even equipped to. If they had any actual integrity, decency or empathy, they wouldn't have been able to do everything they did to win the competition for the position they now hold, and it would've gone to some other scheming, manipulating, self-serving psychopath.

And thus, we end up with something like this. Inevitably.

Nicely clarified.

Yes - the way I said it leaves the possibility that they have to pay at minimum their profit, and no - that should not be the case. They should have to pay at minimum their total revenue.

This shouldn't be an exception - it should be the rule.

At the very least, companies should be fined every single cent that they made off of something criminal, and really, they should be fined much more than they made.

If they're fined less than they made off of it, it's not even really a fine. It's just the government taking a cut of the action.

Wrong about what? I don't even get what the point is supposed to be.

Are you saying that people transition from Linux to Windows? That seems obviously backwards.

Are you saying that Linux is female and Windows is male? That's not even coherent.

What am I supposed to be trying to prove wrong?