The only ones who really care about time of birth are astrologists, because within astrology apparently the time you were born makes a difference.

Mom is assuming that the only thing that would make OP care about when he was born is a girl who was into astrology, so she’s just skipping to the end of the conversation.

Aka- need to be able to screen out advertiser unfortunately content.

Give it a few years and Redditors will also be speeing brainrot like ‘he’s gonna unalive himself with a pewpew’.

Nope. Nobody’s bothered to build it.

See https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/5110

“We’re making the change because it’s better for user experience, better for our ads business, is more in line with safety regulations, and more protective of Reddit data,” he explained.

According to Huffman, Reddit has grown to the point where personalization is increasingly necessary to help users find relevant communities and discussions.

In short- we can’t datamine you if you’re not logged in, we can’t build a behavioral profile on people without accounts, we lick the boots of governments that’ll demand ID checks age verification, and it makes it harder for AI bots to scrape the site without paying us. Really there’s no downside to anyone at all, it’s a win-win. Oh it’s bad for users and bad for the Internet? Is that important? Those groups don’t pay us, right?

Network effect. The communities and discussions are still there. Lemmy has the infrastructure, mostly, but not the users and not the discussions at least not in anywhere near the same volume.

There’s also a few seriously missing features with Lemmy, for example modmail.

I have also found, overall, as stupid and crazy as this may be, when discussing anything involving politics users on Lemmy can be almost militantly closed-minded. I find more intelligent discussions on Lemmy, but I also find more of the ‘you either agree with me or you’re everything that’s wrong with the world’ type.

Nice catch. Fixed

This reminds me of a quote from Star Trek Insurrection- “We Believe that when you build a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man.”

When I first saw the film, I rejected that. Seemed like backwards thinking, ignorant Luddite ideology ignoring the reality that when the machine does the man’s work, you free up the man to do other things. When a man doesn’t have to plow the field, he can focus on art and science and philosophy and music and poetry and otherwise taking his mind to the next level. At least that sounded good in my head.

Then I look at what we have now. We have built machines to create art and science and music and poetry, so the man is left to keep taking out the garbage. This is not an improvement. The Baku may not have been totally wrong.

Ah, that’s the difference.

I hear girlboss as a compliment. You hear it as an insult. No sexism either way, just different interpretations of the term.

When I hear ‘girlboss’ I envision someone confident, competent, and in charge, who understands their business and is making the right choices.

Letting a company’s most promising products languish while the company loses what value it has left is not what comes to mind with ‘girlboss’.

And that’s why I say she ran it into the ground- because when Google demonstrated a MUCH MUCH MUCH better Search, Yahoo didn’t do anything differently. They kept going as a ‘start page portal site’, kept pushing their really shitty email system, and just rode that wave into irrelevance.
Yahoo HAD some properties that COULD have been immensely valuable, even post-Google, if done right.

Flickr is one that comes to mind. Google had Picasa, and Google was innovating and pushing updates while Flickr (app and website) stagnated. So with no innovation everybody eventually left Flickr. With some vision, Flickr could have become what Tumblr or Google Photos ended up being.

Yahoo Answers was another one. It was a forum sort of like AskReddit where you could post questions on any subject you wanted and others would answer it. Again, stagnated, became irrelevant.

I’ll give you that Mayer came in after much of the value had been lost. But she came into a diamond in the rough, a site that was ready to reinvent itself into something relevant again, and she just didn’t.

Look at Google as an example. Google started as a search engine and ad company, and has since reinvented itself with investment in new areas like photos, email, Android, etc.

Yahoo started as a search engine, ad company, ‘portal start page’, and email. They kept doing the same old thing and went nowhere.

But they still had products with value- Flickr for example. Managing photos was starting to become a big thing, but they let Flickr stagnate, it got no development, and eventually people stopped using it. Look at their email product as another- Gmail focused on making their email usable, clean, fast, great storage, and without lock-in. Yahoo email sucked and it was hard to get rid of them because for a long time they didn’t support IMAP (what you’d use to vacuum out your old messages) or email forwarding. People stayed not because it was a great product, but because they were stuck. But that’s a real missed opportunity- Yahoo Mail could have been what Gmail became.

When Google modernized their site with web 2.0 technologies like AJAX and updated the look and feel to match, Yahoo still felt like a Web 1.0 site with ads all over the place and messy design.

That’s why I say she ran the company into the ground. Just because Yahoo wasn’t leading the pack when she joined doesn’t mean there weren’t any wins to be had. It’s the job of CEO to recognize where the company should invest and innovate and where they should stay the course.

Another example- one of her big decisions was ending all remote work for Yahoo employees, without consideration for employees that didn’t live near a Yahoo office, or even how much office space Yahoo had. I remember reports of people working in hallways and sitting on the floor because there weren’t enough desks for everybody that was forced to come in.

To be clear- I’m NOT saying she’s stupid. She’s obviously very smart. But I am saying she wasn’t a good leader, and made many decisions that were obviously wrong both at the time and as seen historically. She does not seem to be a person with good business sense or the right kind of leadership, for a great many reasons.

I don’t understand why people are still taking this woman seriously. She is not a ‘girlboss’. She is the woman who ran Yahoo into the ground, taking it from one of the giants of the dot com era into a largely worthless and useless has-been by grossly mismanaging every single one of their formerly valuable properties.

The fact that she is involved immediately makes this company lose credibility in my eyes.

The fact that she apparently needs an AI model to come up with three compliments for her own daughter only reinforces my opinion.

Yeah exactly. What I read here is ‘if you’re vibe coding all your shit and can spout off a bunch of AI workflow buzzwords you can keep your job or get promoted if not you’re probably getting canned’

Oh I agree paying to rent a cloud xbox when you have one sitting at home is fucking stupid. A lot of cloud everything is fucking stupid, and I say that as an IT person who’s been fighting cloud-itis since the term ‘cloud computing’ became a thing.

Important point of clarification- this is about streaming from the cloud, using an Xbox or GPU in the cloud to play the game. This makes sense as buying the game or not, you are still using cloud resources.

Xbox Remote Play, which runs the game on your home Xbox and streams from your house to wherever you are, is free.

you mean like Sam Altman’s ‘dirty DRAM’ deal where he secretly negotiated with Samsung and Hynix to (together) buy 40% of the world’s memory production, announced both deals the same day (neither company knew about the other), and bought the RAM not as sticks or even chips but as finished wafers, useless until they are sliced, binned, and packaged into chip casings, a task OpenAI has neither the equipment nor the expertise to accomplish?

This is exactly it.

When you run your AI in the cloud you are trading some privacy and security, as well as higher operating expenses, for convenience and lack of upfront cost. This is no different than any other cloud service.

Go back a decade and everybody said cloud is the only future, companies will throw their servers in the garbage, etc. Now a lot of companies have moved workloads back on premises because the simple fact is the cloud provider is buying the same servers and has to pay the same price for them you are just paying for that and also for their profit and overhead.

There’s also the simple fact that even the best models have proven unsafe to be turned loose without human intervention. So if you have to have a human reviewing the output anyway, why pay a boatload more for slightly better output?

I just hope when this bubble pops there isn’t some taxpayer bailout. Let OpenAI go bankrupt if that’s what it takes. Let the idiots who financed data centers with blank checks lose their shirts. There needs to be a lesson for the next bubble.

If you build a tool and in the process of building it it causes harm, that should be on you. If some model under development hacks into another company, the developer should be held criminally and civilly liable.

If you build a tool and someone else uses it to cause harm, that person is 100% liable. It is not your responsibility to prevent your tool from being able to cause every possible harm.

If you build a tool and someone else uses it as intended, but it malfunctions and causes harm, the developer should be liable for that just like any other product liability situation.

Think of it like a riding mower. If I bypass the safety systems and point it toward my neighbor’s house and it runs over their dog, that’s on me not the manufacturer. But if I am riding along and suddenly it knocks me off the top and keeps going on to the neighbor’s yard and runs over their dog, that is on the manufacturer for building an unsafe mower.

Make a gun that can aim and fire itself and you have a much better analogy

Sadly yes you’re right. We’re at the point where we as a society have to wrap our head around the fact that images (and even video) are no longer proof of reality.

I’ve seen a few attempts at cameras which digitally sign the image as proof of reality. That may end up being the new normal.