Yea this is sketchy AF. Not to mention concerning due to its potential implications. Going to be interesting how not only YouTube but other platforms deal with this.
All this will do is piss off creators due to monetization reasons, lead them to complain against YouTube, forcing YouTube to change their monetization process, which will lead to again changing the way videos are made.
And at the end, they will find a way to again shove ads in your face more efficiently.
You get access to news from publishers like WSJ, Wired, LA Times, National Review, as well as magazines from many others. You also get access to news audio which is not bad.
Im already finding it a hard sell for my News+ sub. This price increase may just lead me to cancel at this point.
Oh in no way am I saying that Google is a good guy here. I’m sure that if it were up to them, they would keep the current status quo.
They are only doing this due to the pressure they’re getting for their poor track record of supporting their devices. But it is still a step in the direction nonetheless.
Agreed. This and Googles announcement last month of supporting new chromebooks for 10 years is a step in the right direction.
That’s a potential solution but the problem is that IT departments in schools are replacing them when they reach EOL in regards to security patches (since testing software isn’t supported). While there may be people interested, I can’t see many wanting to buy chromebooks that won’t be getting security patches and are sluggish.
The amount of Chromebooks that go to waste in K-12 schools is insane. So it is nice to see Google taking action on this, especially since its largest market are schools.
It won’t just be electric cars, it’ll be all new model cars from manufacturing companies. At least until ICE is phased out.
I just kept thinking of Abode Security
The anti-Biden ad released by the GOP a few weeks ago was much more easier to tell was AI generated. This one is much more subtle that I wouldn’t have known used AI voice generation if it weren’t for the article. Yes it was simply a post on social media, but having it voiced over adds much more to reach its audience imo.
This is concerning.
Edit: anti-Biden ad
It’ll sell it’s fair share but the delayed launch is going to really hurt it it’s potential sales numbers. In the span of their initial release date and ‘24, ev pickups from Ford, Rivian, and GM have released.
They could have been one of the first and taken the hype
RSS feeds through Reeder on iOS. Get news from outlets like Ars Technica, The Verge, MIT Tech Review, NYT, among others.
Battlefield 4. Was there from the buggy as shit release on the PS4 back in 2013. A little over 600 hours. Some of my best gaming memories.
Read his quotes and it sounds like he thinks that they can continue with the closed source path, despite of the memo (which I believed had plenty of important points).
You think we’ll see them make a fully open source model?
On what grounds exactly? Their incompetence is what gave Meta the opening to launch a competitor to begin with.
Yes, it has been fun adding and contributing to the small and bigger communities on here alike. Not to mention that there have been more constructive conversations as well.
I differ with your view in that I’m looking forward to having more people join and seeing these communities grow. As of now, the platform is still pretty niche (which is nice) but the fediverse can be built in a flexible way to give users the power in what they want to see and block.
To start, your confusing the cake case with the one from last week that had to do with a website for gay marriage (cake happened years ago). In both, they ruled that the 1st amendment rights of free expression and freedom of religion supersedes state nondiscriminatory laws.
For the record, I’m completely opposed to the rulings. But what you claim to be “pure fantasy of religion” is not something a large portion of the population would not agree with as they believe is some sort of faith, and the right to believe that faith is something that is protected by our 1st amendment whether you like it or not. I mean, it’s something that makes our country great is it not?
In regards to affirmative action, it was bound to be overturned due to its own discriminatory nature. Are there massive discrepancies in access to quality education, funding, wealth, and opportunities on a socio-economic and racial basis that is widespread all throughout society? Of course! But affirmative action is NOT the answer or solution to this, again due to its own discriminatory nature (and therefore, unconstitutional).
The whole bribery thing with Roberts and Thomas is a separate issue, and there needs to be severe consequences for such actions. Does SCOTUS have massive problems currently? Yes! But the faster we realize that it was meant to be a non-partisan institution with the sole purpose of interpreting the constitution and not ruling based on what the majority of people want, the faster we’ll realize that the institution is currently broken and we need to be very careful with what solutions are implemented (and no, packing the court is not a solution. It’ll make the whole situation exponentially worse)
Because the rulings the current court are making are not what the majority of us want.
The job of SCOTUS is not to rule based on what the “majority” of people want. It’s to check the constitutionality of the policies and laws passed by the other 2 branches.
School districts are quick to buy Chromebooks and go “1:1”, but cheap out on IT and cybersecurity.