Skip to content

Danish Ministry switching from Microsoft Office/365 to LibreOffice

Technology
45 31 7
  • Alibaba Cloud claims new DB manager beats rival hyperscalers

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    7 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • New Google AdSense Fill Empty In-Page Ads

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    21 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    S
    I've not seen an ad in years, so they can try to monetize me but will fail spectacularly
  • ChatGPT Lost a Chess Game to an Atari 2600

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 328 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    65 Aufrufe
    M
    Good. Anyone who uses shit like this deserves all of the bad things that go along with it. Stupidity will continue to be punished.
  • Ispace of Japan’s Moon Lander Resilience Has Crashed

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    38 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    M
    $ ls space?
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    258 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • The AI-powered collapse of the American tech workfoce

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    4 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    roofuskit@lemmy.worldR
    The biggest tech companies are still trimming from pandemic over hiring. Smaller companies are still snatching workers up. And you also have companies trimming payroll for the coming Trump recession. Neither have anything to do with AI.
  • Microsoft Bans Employees From Using DeepSeek App

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    121 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    41 Aufrufe
    L
    (Premise - suppose I accept that there is such a definable thing as capitalism) I'm not sure why you feel the need to state this in a discussion that already assumes it as a necessary precondition of, but, uh, you do you. People blaming capitalism for everything then build a country that imports grain, while before them and after them it’s among the largest exporters on the planet (if we combine Russia and Ukraine for the “after” metric, no pun intended). ...what? What does this have to do with literally anything, much less my comment about innovation/competition? Even setting aside the wild-assed assumptions you're making about me criticizing capitalism means I 'blame [it] for everything', this tirade you've launched into, presumably about Ukraine and the USSR, has no bearing on anything even tangentially related to this conversation. People praising capitalism create conditions in which there’s no reason to praise it. Like, it’s competitive - they kill competitiveness with patents, IP, very complex legal systems. It’s self-regulating and self-optimizing - they make regulations and do bailouts preventing sick companies from dying, make laws after their interests, then reactively make regulations to make conditions with them existing bearable, which have a side effect of killing smaller companies. Please allow me to reiterate: ...what? Capitalists didn't build literally any of those things, governments did, and capitalists have been trying to escape, subvert, or dismantle those systems at every turn, so this... vain, confusing attempt to pin a medal on capitalism's chest for restraining itself is not only wrong, it fails to understand basic facts about history. It's the opposite of self-regulating because it actively seeks to dismantle regulations (environmental, labor, wage, etc), and the only thing it optimizes for is the wealth of oligarchs, and maybe if they're lucky, there will be a few crumbs left over for their simps. That’s the problem, both “socialist” and “capitalist” ideal systems ignore ape power dynamics. I'm going to go ahead an assume that 'the problem' has more to do with assuming that complex interacting systems can be simplified to 'ape (or any other animal's) power dynamics' than with failing to let the richest people just do whatever they want. Such systems should be designed on top of the fact that jungle law is always allowed So we should just be cool with everybody being poor so Jeff Bezos or whoever can upgrade his megayacht to a gigayacht or whatever? Let me say this in the politest way I know how: LOL no. Also, do you remember when I said this? ‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires’ is wearing kinda thin You know, right before you went on this very long-winded, surreal, barely-coherent ramble? Did you imagine I would be convinced by literally any of it when all it amounts to is one giant, extraneous, tedious equivalent of 'Won't someone please think of the billionaires?' Simp harder and I bet maybe you can get a crumb or two yourself.