Do you think that’s universal or only applied to the USA? And how does the article support your opinion?

You didn’t ask the same thing.

I’m very sorry for you. People might not realize how traumatizing having to deal with it can be. It definitely shouldn’t be the responsibility of people without proper support or training.

I’m pretty sure this is one freedom US people won’t let technology take away in the name of safety and ease of use. The roads and the culture are the problem. You can go fast and people will say going as fast as you can the whole time is the right way to drive.

Headphone manufacturers need access to system functionalities such as proximity auto-pairing and automatic audio switching.

If Apple were a restaurant, they wouldn’t provide tableware for free and would charge you for bringing your own while tying one of your hands behind your back.

Hey, as long as the competition is reasonable, you can be as unreasonable as you want and say the customer has options. Curious they never say their customers appreciate what they do as a defense.

My cynical take is that Facebook wants the money from ads target at children, but not the responsibility of vetting the apps they might download because the trust the platform they are in. Google and Apple just want to pass the responsibility to developers and create laws that punish them for misusing tools they want to provide so other people deal with the complaints.

Still being cynical. It’s not that big corporations can’t do anything. They just can’t do anything without using their own money.

The conflict that people that hate both copyright and exploitative AI had just got resolved. It’s nothing new, but I still get surprised by how shameless the justifications can be.

“Your honor, if I hadn’t stole all that money, I couldn’t be investing to make myself more money. Think about it, it was so much that I had to hire people to help me, so I created jobs.”

Google control the browser most people use and that browser could be defaulted to use a different search engine, which controls what you see when you have a question. They can take control from google and allow a real ally to buy it.

I think that is a little backwards thinking. Common folk are at these events taking the pictures. Common folk are producing high quality content. I’m pretty sure the celebrities themselves wouldn’t have as much information on their peers as the collective of researchers do. Far from mere spectators.

It wasn’t true. I wasn’t even trying to deceive anyone, but the problem is that people will mostly believe without asking for sources if they don’t care. I put an edit above now.

My oopsie. Clarification above.

Let me spin that for you so you see the problem.

Mastodon, the social network backed by terrorists. By signing up, you put your name on a FBI watchlist as well.

edit: I didn’t make it clear that this would be the spin that would be possible to use against mastodon. It’s not true, but it doesn’t have to be to cause harm.

Extra RAM.

A copy of scratch then.

I remember doing that to read and write my answers in forums. Then someone had already posted the same comment or a better version.

Normal people talk things over? I would seriously believe that to be the farfetched scenario.

I thought the same. Now plataforms have a target audience to focus. The accounts move, the artists have to follow, the rest has a reason to move as well.

Ethnic and exotic food suddenly sound like very strange terms. This question made me realize that people from outside would call the food of my country simply Brazilian food, but we ourselves divide and subdivided them in more categories. I’m sure the same is true everywhere.

I know this is not a question for discussion, but I thought this could add more variety to the answers.

I agree there’s abuse, but there are laws:

Article explaining the laws used as support / Article with historical precedent.

Both in Portuguese.

My comment is all context. The word is not the problem, it’s the way it’s being used.

Try it in terms of double standards. It’s an experiment that has been done. People see a man talking aggressively to a woman and some will intervene. People see a woman talking aggressively to a man and the number that intervenes drops significantly, some will cheer.

Or try it in terms of victims of violence. They see people fighting and they react as if they are in immediate danger. They feel safe with their friends, but their friends suddenly decide to start arguments on the street.

Reading what you wrote, I know you can understand the issue. We are not saying you all are wrong, just that it hurts. Can you understand why it hurts? That’s the only thing that really matters and that I want to discuss right now.