Yeah, they will, but I think for this to work and be respected, they need to give companies this period, because it actually could take alot of time to change.
In this case, not so much, but it could be in the future, and the rules are the same regardless.
The intent is to allow companies time to implement the change. But if you'll pardon my cynicism, in practice, what ends up happening is companies just use it as a tactic to delay the implementation and continue recording the revenue.
At the very least they should forfeit the revenue that they earn during the period for this. I'm not sure exactly how the fines work and whether they take this into account, but I doubt Apple is seriously going to use the 12-month period to actually come clean and change their ways. I think they'll just use it as more time to come up with some new bullshit form of non-compliance.
I actually agree with you, that Apple most certainly will stall. And I also don't think it's optimal, but huge decisions on how to go forward do take time.
And I just think it may be better in the long run, that it seems more "fair" for the company, even thought it's not.
Also, if Apple doesn't comply this time and tries to find a new bullshit form of non-compliance, there's no second chance according to the EU law. The fine will hit, so they certainly won't do that.
If after 12 monty they actually comply then thats still a positive.
However i fear they may “fix” it with malicious compliance at 11 months and then the cycle repeats.
Instead what i think should happen is they should need to obtain “verified compliance” within a year. (Minus the time europe takes to check) and if the term expires the penalty goes up to eventually forced splitting up.
I think for this to work and be respected, they need to give companies this period
I would say the opposite is true. Apple knows exactly what the EU wants and is doing everything within their power to maliciously comply. Giving them 12 months is nothing but a free pass to exploit consumers for another year. Then they'll continue doing it because the EU has proven that they won't actually do anything about it.
At the heart of Monday’s findings are three elements of Apple’s practices, including fees charged to app developers for every purchase made within seven days of linking out to the commercial app.
This is, in my opinion, the most egregious non-compliant practice from Apple. They have no reason whatsoever to entitle themselves to purchases made outside their repository just because the software runs on their hardware. It's also the most asinine set of rules that they established to pretend that they were complying with the DMA.
It's a bit disappointing that it will take so long before the fines can be enforced, but I really hope that they get the maximum penalty over this because it's really the most shockingly brazen breach of the DMA's terms. In fact, I hope that they get imposed the maximum penalty multiple times - the same article I linked mentions that there are two other DMA investigations being launched into Apple, though I don't know what grounds those other investigations are looking into.
And I really hope Apple gets the message loud and clear: they're gonna start making less money. And this is a good thing. They don't deserve it, and they were never entitled to it in the first place. This is what happens when you invent new revenue streams that are criminally worthless.
fact, I hope that they get imposed the maximum penalty multiple times
Max penalty would be breaking up Apple. It's even defined in the law. First comes 10% of revenue, then 20, then dissolution (didn't know the English term( Thanks billiam0202) )
If you know insider information that's not public (A company misbehaved being one of them) you are not supposed to trade stock to financially gain from it.
Now that's what you're supposed to do... Politicians have proven that's rules just for peasants, and most stock traders heavily benefit from this type of information, and unless your Martha Stewart for some reason, you get away with it... But my point is legally, if you know they misbehaved, that's immediately insider information?
Edit: I misunderstood the headling/rule. Sorry. Quite a shit thing that granted stock can be revoked, especially after you pay taxes. I wonder how legal it is, because if they can revoke it, is it actually yours and thus do you have to pay taxes on it?
It's if SpaceX decides that the employee misbehaved, not the company that misbehaved, that allows them to ban that employee from selling private stocks. Also if you leave the company for any reason you lose out on 6 months of them or if you are fired they will buy back all of your stocks at $0, all the while you are paying taxes on your stocks. So the employees could possibly end up losing money from taxes on something they never actually got because the company said so.
Oops I misunderstood the direction. (I think it was if the employee deems they misbehaved. (I assumed "It" was the employee, not SpaceX. More obvious in hindsight I guess, my bad.)
which is unfortunate, i think YT does it to save paid labor on moderating comments, but this allows video posters to upload misleading info and delete correcting replies, which also pairs well with hidden thumbs down
Honestly, I'd rather the channel have the first say here. It would be even better if some independent mod team could override channel owners though if there are enough reports.
There isn't a great solution that solves all the possibilities, it is a difficult problem. An independent mod team sounds great until you get into the details of how they are formed and the fact that they are people too who might miss nuance or hold their own shitty opinions.
Yeah but it's not that accurate, and it leaves most normal mobile users out of the picture. I know YouTube knew exactly what they were doing when they removed dislikes, but it still seems absolutely insane to remove such a useful tool for sifting through the bullshit.
Ooooh boy it must feel super special to have this secret knowledge that nobody else but you can seem to keep up with. Almost as if it's bullshit.
Tell me, based my one reply to you, who am I following? Is anyone who disagrees with you automatically a "follower"? That would seem a little too convenient, no?
The fact is you're a basic-ass, run of the mill contrarian. Most of us have learned how to deal with people like you in our real lives, but it's always a little bit sad to see someone who clearly doesn't have anyone in their life to tell them to shut the fuck up every now and then.
So here, I'll do everyone a service: Shut the fuck up.
Creators can view their like and dislike percentage, and around when the extension came about, many large youtubers were able to confirm the accuracy of the guesstimate that the extension gives you (on new content after the dislike indicator was removed). There are enough users and historical data to make the calculations reeeeally close.
It's not real though, you do know that right? There isn't some hidden dislike count that YT has that the extension can access.
I imagine it's taken from other users of the extension clicking the dislike button. A biased and wildly uneven sample. I would not put much stock in it at all.
Can confirm it is real, I have it installed right now via revanced, Grayjay, and Firefox extension.
Also, I have a terrible imagination, but that's OK, as it's open source and you can see how it's calculated on their github.
It takes the ration of likes to dislikes from users of the service, and applies that ratio to the total number of likes to estimate the total number of dislikes.
It also archived a lot of video's dislike counts before the dislike field was removed from the API.
As a user of the extension who knows how it works (no thanks to yourself), take it with whatever sized grain of salt you feel comfortable with.
The dislike bar was real, I'll tell ya, I've lived nigh on eighty years and me own two eyes seent the dislike bar clear as day! Ye better believe, sonny, it's the truth!
Yeah, the dislike bar used to be a thing. You could see how many dislikes there were compared to likes, all represented on a line below the two buttons. It was sort of like this image, except imagine the "yes" and "no" as a single line (but retaining their separate colors).
I condone poisoning this feature with false info. maybe it will teach them that the dislikes should be public again. using an extension is cool and all, but so many people still don't know about it.
It really is unfortunate as it COULD be a really good feature if it were being implemented by someone who wasn't just trying to crowdsource AI training data that will go into commercial products without compensation to anyone. It could be a great tool for professionals and experts to expand on what creators say, a way to call out falsehoods and Hypocrites, and a way to find your people in a world that is growing ever bleaker. But no, it is just being done to force more ads down our throats and harvest more money from us.
isn't this the guy who first tried to oust Sam then signed a letter saying that was a mistake and Sam should be brought back and then again said OpenAI is no longer true to its principals and left. yea sure bro.
He’s the guy that tried to stay true to the mission, realized that Sam was becoming a problem. Had little business sense to calculate the drama that ensued.
Realized that openAI getting destroyed in a single week was worse then having Sam run it. (Micrososoft and google where just going to gobble up the void)
Then was forced into compliance by Sam who had conditions to return. Add in the fact there long time
Personal friends, Sam is a super high level speaker while
Ilya usually keeps to themselves. The super stressful days everyone was on during the times.
You may understand why he didn’t want to continue fighting and just eased into a slow leave to do better elsewhere.
Well the same letter he signed also more or less threatened the company with most of its employers quitting and going to Microsoft to join Sam. So saving their AI technology from clutches of other big tech story does not really add up. It looks more like a failed power grab and then switching back sides when things didn't go well.
I don't think coverage appropriate hairline is something that is on this guys mind.
To me he just scream massive (autistic) nerd. And i am all the more confident and supportive of him for it.
We need more smart people that dont care about appearance and charisma in leadership positions. I am not saying those are not useful in leaderships but theres to much of it in the tech industry .
The company is called “Safe Super Intelligence”. Not a fan of names like these, kind of like if a company called itself “safe airplanes”, there’s something about it that makes me think it won’t live up to the name.
Not sure how they plan on raising money when so many other AI companies are promising commercialization. A company prioritizing safety will be defeated by another prioritizing profit. A company like this could have flourished in the time before openAI, but right now there’s so much demand for gpus and talent that makes it very challenging to catch up, more so when less scrupulous companies offer more money for engineers. They’d have to hire from a smaller and more limited pool of applicants that believe in the mission.
The company is called “Safe Super Intelligence”. Not a fan of names like these, kind of like if a company called itself “safe airplanes”, there’s something about it that makes me think it won’t live up to the name.
Or all those crypto scams that put the word "safe" in their token's name to sucker people into thinking it wasn't a Ponzi scheme
A big part of the AI Hype cycle has been "AIs are potentially too omnipotent for us to control, but also too much of a national security threat to ignore". So you get these media hacks insisting we need a super-intelligent artificial mind that is firmly within the grip of its creator.
As a consequence of the hype over-topping any kind of real utility from these machines, you've got some of the top board members of these firms spinning out their own boutique branches of the industry by insisting prior iterations are too dangerous or too constrained to fulfill their future their intended role as techno-utopian machine gods.
Not sure how they plan on raising money when so many other AI companies are promising commercialization.
The sensationalist bullshit is how they plan to make money. "Don't trust Alice's AI, its too dangerous! I'm the Safe AI" versus "Don't trust Bob's AI, its too limited. I'm the Ambitious AI". Then Wall Street investment giants, who don't know shit from shoelaces, throw gobs of money at both while believing they've hedged their bets. And a few years after that, when these firms don't produce anything remotely as fantastical as they promised, we go into a giant speculative bubble collapse that takes out half the energy or agricultural sector as collateral damage.
In twenty years, we'll be reading books titled "How AI Destroyed The Orange", describing the convoluted chain of events that tied fertilizer prices to debt-swaps on machine learning centers and resulted in almost all of Florida's biggest cash crop being lost to a hiccup in the NASDAQ between 2026 and 2029.
Advertisers working in your native language cannot hijack your attention when foreign language videos are running. Subtitling facilitates that, and encourages site activity that differs from consumption, such as broadening one's horizons and being inquisitive about the real world.
techcrunch.com
Active