The verified, raw data of at least 1,000 other people's worth of data, so the data has a chance of being statistically significant, rather than 1 random dude out of billions posting on elmu's website.
I know my normal, non-self-driving car won't randomly slam on the brakes or swerve into a median. Even if I take my hands off the wheel, I know it will keep going straight-ish for a second or two.
A "self-driving" tesla is an adversary you need to supervise to make sure it doesn't take actions you wouldn't expect of a normal car.
> they may have trimmed some fat, which is normal and necessary, but it's disingenuous to say that "engineers were vilified"
You can always tell when someone is embarrassed to defend something (especially hurting people), when they have to mask it in ambiguous, impassive terms and stale euphemisms.
He didn't fire thousands of good people, human beings who have to worry about putting food on the table now, for purely ideological reasons, while vilifying them as "woke", unqualified, doing work not worth doing (only to open the same positions back up now, because it turns out it was). No, he just "trimmed the fat".
Oh, did people get hurt? Did we waste money and lose expertise for nothing? I thought we just "trimmed the fat". Gotta "trim the fat", right? "Trimming the fat" is normal and necessary, and if I say something is "trimming the fat", it must be. Thus, anything I say is normal and necessary, must be.
show me one ToS for any major service that has "interoperability" in their clauses.
"interoperability" is never the case in the agreements.
it is very stupid decision from business perspective. and unless legally required (like in agriculture or something, "right to repair"), no sane business will provide this to their customers.
> show me one ToS for any major service that has "interoperability" in their clauses... no sane business will provide this to their customers.
I will concede your observation that often businesses act unethically if it means they get more money.
But, ethics doesn't mean "obey the ToS", it means structure the ToS such that the ToS itself is ethical. In my opinion (which is equal in value to yours), banning interoperability in a ToS is even less ethical than violating such an unethical ToS.
For a clue as to why that is, ask why "right to repair" exists as a concept. What are the ethical principles underlying "right to repair"? After all: like you say, companies could make more money by forbidding it in their ToS (and have).
> For instance, from AirBnb's terms of service: "Do not use bots, crawlers, scrapers, or other automated means to access or collect data or other content from or otherwise interact with the Airbnb Platform."
> There is no similar prohibition against using screen readers.
A screen reader uses automated means to access or collect data or other content from or otherwise interact with a platform.
> Marketing is only spam when it isn't previous customers, or people who have specifically opted in.
Yes, this excludes any people, customers or otherwise, who did not knowingly and willingly opt-in to specifically receive marketing emails / promotional emails / any other unnecessary emails.
A good heuristic is: if somebody receives an email from you that they do not want, there's a good chance you're spamming them: maybe by calling a marketing email, an "update" instead; maybe because you didn't make it abundantly clear to them when they opted-in that they would receive emails of that type.
The story is usually that businesses don't want to commit to indefinitely expending their limited efforts maintaining software which isn't part of the company's core competencies. Most of the cost and effort of software happens after the first release is delivered.
> Enterprises have a business to run and don’t want to run a software shop on top of everything else.
It sounds like you mostly understand here. The biggest part of "running a software shop" they want to avoid is responsibility for support, bugs, fires, ongoing maintenance, and legal issues, of post-release software.
Dave's Pizza around the corner doesn't make a social media app, not because Dave can't figure it out, not because he can't vibe code one, not because he can't contract someone to do it, but because running a social media site isn't a core competency of Dave's Pizza. Instead, Dave uses existing social media sites, and focuses his efforts and passions on making pizza.
So I work in enterprise tech. consulting, my current project is with a large, global, chemicals company (it wouldn't be right to call out my client by name). This client is extremely competent from their multiple enterprise architects down to their analysts, they're a pleasure to work with. One of the business requirements could be met by a very simple in-house developed and hosted API, it's a perfect use case for GenAI assisted coding too. There's no magic, it's a problem solved over and over already. However, they don't want to touch inhouse dev with a 10 foot pole for the reasons we're both talking about. They don't want to support it, extend it, back it up, monitor it, and all the other things that have to happen after the code is done. They're perfectly happy to buy licenses from a saas so if anything goes wrong they can tell the CTO "it's not me, it's them". And when the CTO says "why doesn't it do this too!?!" they can say "i'll call our rep and ask".
saas value to an enterprise is more than just the functionality provided and I think that is lost on a lot of the heads down software devs here.
There is already plenty of precedent for real-time-served ads which are annoying, or malicious, or install malware; or outright exploit vulnerabilities in the browser.
reply