Skip to content
linux-nerds.org

linux-nerds.org
  1. Übersicht
  2. Technology
  3. The Trump Mobile T1 Phone looks both bad and impossible

The Trump Mobile T1 Phone looks both bad and impossible

Technology
42 33 1
Anmelden zum Antworten

  • D

    A judge set the timeline for the Amazon antitrust trial, which starts on February 9, 2027

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    33 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    rooki@lemmy.worldR
    Woah in 2 years, that will be definitly not be forgotten until then....
  • D

    AI and misinformation

    Technology technology
    3
    20 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    D
    Don’t lose hope, just pretend to with sarcasm. Or if you are feeling down it could work the other way too. https://aibusiness.com/nlp/sarcasm-is-really-really-really-easy-for-ai-to-handle#close-modal
  • D

    Australians may soon be able to download iPhone apps from outside the Apple Store under new proposal.

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    108 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    K
    The title at least dont say anything new AFAIK. Because you could already download from external sources but those apps still needed to be signed by apple. But maybe they changed?
  • A

    FBI Wants Access To Encrypted iPhone And Android Data—So Does Europe

    Technology technology
    38
    1
    175 Stimmen
    38 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    whotookkarl@lemmy.worldW
    It's not a back door, it's just a rear entryway
  • P

    Community Notes vanishes from X feeds, raising 'serious questions' amid ongoing EU probe

    Technology technology
    94
    1
    463 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    3 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.
  • P

    Taiwan’s chip plants run on migrant workers. Job brokers run their lives

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    75 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    L
    Police: Arrest you for having an open beer in public Judge: sentences you to prison The PIC:
  • P

    Scientists '3D Print' Material Deep Inside The Body Using Ultrasound

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    62 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    W
    What could possibly go wrong? Edit: reads like the substrate still needs to be introduced first
  • return2ozma@lemmy.worldR

    After an Arizona man was shot, an AI video of him addresses his killer in court

    Technology technology
    8
    33 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.