Skip to content

Apple announces iOS 26 with Liquid Glass redesign

Technology
83 52 954
  • 1k Stimmen
    224 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    kazerniel@lemmy.worldK
    Optimise for maximum happiness and freedom and minimum suffering on a societal level, while making sure that a certain threshold of freedom-from-suffering is met for every single individual. (So that happiness for the majority is not reached via the suffering of minorities.) Obviously there can be arguments about where we draw the lines for the specifics of these. Quite a few ways have been developed to measure happiness, wellbeing, flourishing, quality of life, whatever nuance you want to pick. We have ample proof that it's a system that fundamentally undermines societal happiness by incentivising the accumulation of wealth at the expense of the wellbeing of people and ecosystems. It's decades overdue to radically change the way the world's economy works. (Which is of course not something those with the most power want, so unlikely to happen any time soon.)
  • 748 Stimmen
    176 Beiträge
    589 Aufrufe
    K
    You are correct. However, you can only really blitzscale with VC backing.
  • Google search boss says AI isn’t killing search clicks

    Technology technology
    49
    1
    173 Stimmen
    49 Beiträge
    262 Aufrufe
    dave@lemmy.nzD
    Holy crap, I hadn't considered that we have the technology to create articles on the fly based on search terms. That could be a serious weapon of war - you get your site to the top through SEO, then show each user personalised propoganda. You show googlebot the genuine page but adjust the page based on what you know about the user.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 325 Stimmen
    28 Beiträge
    190 Aufrufe
    lyra_lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zoneL
    I hear you, and also, the modern Labour group (Neo Labour, if you will), when they were created, revived the OG Labour ideals from the 1700s, and OG Labour was a spinoff from ex-Conservative members. The way Labour act only prove my theory that there have only ever been two parties in power
  • 136 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    91 Aufrufe
    C
    So is there a way to fill my social media with endless markov chains without: Spamming other users. Just sticking them all in some dedicated channel that would allow them to be easily filtered out.
  • xAI Data Center Emits Plumes of Pollution, New Video Shows

    Technology technology
    50
    1
    516 Stimmen
    50 Beiträge
    811 Aufrufe
    G
    You do. But you also plan in the case the surrounding infrastructure fails. But more to the point, in some cases it is better to produce (parto of) your own electricity (where better means cheaper) than buy it on the market. It is not really common but is doable.
  • Microsoft Bans Employees From Using DeepSeek App

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    121 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    104 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.