The "internet" is different things to different people. For the masses: if you take down the datacenters - or more easily coerce the leadership of the magnificent 7 you effectively turn of the internet for most people
Other than the fact youve been preserveering (or even thriving) for so long - which is way more that can be said of many solopreneurs or startups - what do you think makes your app/biz so resilient in finding/keeping such long term customers?
I like the initial emphasis on the trade treaties of his talk.
IMO the scope and amount of these treaties have been unacceptable and the only reason they passed were due to the framing of thia magical thinking that any increased trade is always great "enlarging the pie" and everyone ignores the fact that it creates a huge monoculture that is unable to accommodate people's with vastly different needs.
These treaties alienate people in the same same supranational orgs like EU does.
The framing of "rules" based order masks the fact that its "rules set mostly by the hegemon in its favour"
> [trade] creates a huge monoculture that is unable to accommodate people's with vastly different needs
How so? Cash on the barrelhead doesn't care which cultures are on either side. During the Cold War, capitalists and communists traded with each other. I myself have traded with people whose language and culture I hadn't the foggiest of.
Monoculture is problematic, yes, but its roots must be in something other than trade.
Any sovereign country can come up with whatever sanctions they want. The only reason the US ones have such broad reach particular in Europe is due to Europes hopeless reliance on US financial system, infrastructure and capital. Stop using eurodollar and us debt markets and sanctions would be much less impactful
> We are rapidly losing our freedoms to the will of these companies
which companies? google? I'm the first to blame them for almost anything, but how about Postfinance, twint, health insurers, landlords, all those companies you mention? shouldn't they offer ways to do business with them that does not involve some third party? - for example, OP mentions that hsbc website still works for them on android, this is more than what can be said of other banks that basically removed certain "sensitive" features from their homepages. Or practically all the neobanks who 100% rely on apps.
Even those governments you mention: how hard/easy do they make for citizens to engage in commercial activity without relying on third parties or adversarial systems?
I know the argument used by all of them - companies, governments: we are just "following the rules enforced on us (as interpreted by our lawyers)".
Everyone goes to the "simplest" target - Google in this case - to blame for the status quo, but Google is in this position because everybody else - consumers, companies, governements, etc - buys into the "convenience" and neglect everything else.
> Everyone goes to the "simplest" target - Google in this case - to blame for the status quo, but Google is in this position because everybody else
Eh, I think we ought to dole out our ire in accordance with the damage. All are responsible to varying degrees, but Google is the most powerful, and has the greatest ability to curb bad behavior if they wanted to, so they get and deserve the most blame second only to the governments that let them become that powerful.
Dole out the ire, but it won't fix the problem until you realize that everyone's dismissal of ownership and responsibility in exchange for convenience is what creates the googles and apples of the world.
Google will argue they are enforcing good behaviour: if you want to rely on their technical guarantees you follow their rules/specs.
> Dole out the ire, but it won't fix the problem until you realize that everyone's dismissal of ownership and responsibility in exchange for convenience is what creates the googles and apples of the world
This is the opposite of true. Blaming normal human behavior for our problems is distraction from effective action. Humans are a near-constant, you have to look to incentive structures to make any changes to the world.
That startup is called CodeRabbit and damned if it doesn't come up with good suggestions sometimes. Other times you have to overrule it, or more likely create separate PRs for its suggestions, and avoid lumping a bunch of different stuff into a single PR, and sometimes it's stupid and doesn't know what it's talking about, and also misses stuff, so you do still need a human to review it. But if your at all place where LLMs are being used to generate large swaths of functional code, including tests, and human reviewers simply can't keep up, overall it does feels like a step forwards. I can't speak to how well other similar services do, but presumably they're not the only one that does that; CodeRabbit's just the one that my employer has chosen.
And this outcome will be obvious very quickly for most observers won't it? So, the magic will occur by pushing AI beyond another limit or just have people go back to specialize on what eventually will becoming boring and procedural until AI catches up
- they dont offer an "algorithmic" feed - underage can only see content from who they follow and, most importantly
- photographs NOT allowed.
I bet 90% of social issues with "social media" disappears if these tools go back to 1990s style internet
reply