Skip to content

Amazon boss tells staff AI means their jobs are at risk in coming years

Technology
30 27 0
  • 122 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    T
    I thought Trump and Elon had a major falling out? Actually now that I think of it, news about that fizzled out very quickly. Did they silently kiss and make up behind closed doors or something?
  • 100 Stimmen
    60 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.worldJ
    We all get emotional on certain topics; it is understandable. All is well, peace.
  • France considers requiring Musk’s X to verify users’ age

    Technology technology
    20
    1
    142 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    C
    TBH, age verification services exist. If it becomes law, integrating them shouldn't be more difficult than integrating a OIDC login. So everyone should be able to do it. Depending on these services, you might not even need to give a name, or, because they are separate entities, don't give your name to the platform using them. Other parts of regulation are more difficult. Like these "upload filters" that need to figure out if something shared via a service is violating any copyright before it is made available.
  • What editor or IDE do you use and why?

    Technology technology
    37
    1
    26 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    T
    KEIL, because I develop embedded systems.
  • The FDA Is Approving Drugs Without Evidence They Work

    Technology technology
    69
    1
    506 Stimmen
    69 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    L
    Now you hit me curious too. This was my source on Texas https://www.texasalmanac.com/place-types/town Also the total number of total towns is over 4,000 with only 3k unincorporated, I did get the numbers wrong even in Texas. I had looked at Wikipedia but could not find totals, only lists
  • 18 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    M
    Business Insider was founded in 2007.
  • 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.
  • 143 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    johnedwa@sopuli.xyzJ
    You do not need to ask for consent to use functional cookies, only for ones that are used for tracking, which is why you'll still have some cookies left afterwards and why properly coded sites don't break from the rejection. Most websites could strip out all of the 3rd party spyware and by doing so get rid of the popup entirely. They'll never do it because money, obviously, and sometimes instead cripple their site to blackmail you into accepting them.