atrielienz
@atrielienz@lemmy.world
- Comment on Airbnb will now show users the total cost of their stay right away 2 days ago:
Long term/ extended stay hotels exist that will provide these things. But the vast majority of people don’t even consider those. They rely on what they can search up on Google for the area and algorithms don’t take into account that you need to bring your dog, want a separate set of bedrooms in the same suite, or that you’re looking for a kitchen.
I see this Everytime AirBnB is mentioned and every time I wonder if people even know extended stay hotels exist.
- Comment on A Reddit Bot Drove Me Insane 3 days ago:
This is largely the problem with most social media, and generative AI has made this problem worse just like it has made other pretty terrible facets of human interactions worse.
Anyone who was paying attention on reddit the last couple years (even pre-pandemic) could see that bots were taking over. The main difference (love mods or hate them) was that mods who’s subreddits didn’t rely on bot content to stay active were moderating the bot problem as best they could.
Now, most of those mods aren’t mods anymore and the vast majority only really want the engagement anyway so of course they’ll let bots basically take over.
Reddit the corp never cared about keeping bots off the platform and they care even less now. Bot engagement counts. Not views of ads count. Removing bots actively hurts their bottom line in the short term so of course they aren’t going to do anything with that.
The actual human users on Reddit don’t care because they’re there to consume. It doesn’t matter to them if the posts they engage with are made by bots or not.
- Comment on Claude gets depressed, calls the FBI and attempts to shut down a vending machine business after being filled will existential dread. 4 days ago:
That’s honestly hilarious though. They made Marvin and don’t see the problem with that.
- Comment on Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case 4 days ago:
But things up in the fallout. The power vacuum the collapse will create will be ripe for anyone who comes out financially ahead in such a situation.
- Comment on Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case 4 days ago:
Tech giants welcomed Trump because they thought he would enable two things. A roll-back of regulations, and to increase profits. The thing is, the monkey wrench in this situation is twofold. The first problem is Elon Musk being placed in a position of power that enables him to detrimentally effect the profits and regulations of these industries to benefit his companies first and foremost while also being detrimental to these other tech companies. We see that a lot with the data he’s been stealing from all kinds of government agencies under the guise of saving the government money.
This means that even regulations that are removed that page the way for these companies to enact policy or even just products to enrich themselves are hindered by Musk being a direct competitor to a lot of them. Facebook/Instagram vs Twitter, Tesla vs Ford, SpaceX vs Blue origin.
The second problem is the tariff situation. It cuts off a majority of tech companies from the cheap manufacture of components, devices, and even just consumer electronics that a lot of tech companies rely on in order to get their products into the hands of users so they can siphon up user data.
A third problem is that Musk has his hands in so much stuff that he’s pressuring the government to place his companies first in the running for. SpaceX and Tesla especially for things like bullet proof vehicles (where previously the government had contracts with other automotive manufacturers), and SpaceX being used for missions that NASA might have previously handled using Boeing products etc.
All these tech companies went to Washington DC to “Kiss the Ring” with the intention not just of avoiding a lot of legislation being leveled at them by previous administrations, but also in the hopes that they could position themselves as Musk had. For further government contracts. Because long after Trump is dead and buried, the contracts would be lucrative.
But that assumes they survive all the upheaval his administration is causing (and not just survive it, but come out largely economically and financially unharmed).
Anything may be possible, but the market has to survive in order for these companies to remain supreme.
- Comment on Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case 4 days ago:
Trump’s first administration filed the lawsuit that led to the court determination that Google held a search monopoly. The result of that is the DOJ filed a proposal that Google sell chrome web browser to another entity. Google has been fighting this proposal tooth and nail.
So the answer is, I’ll believe Meta gets broken up when I see it.
- Comment on The Government Has Already Won the Meta Case 1 week ago:
That’s true. But that doesn’t mean they don’t get to choose a better option than Facebook or Google or Amazon. Amazon at the very least isn’t a main competitor of theirs because Amazon doesn’t have a short form video product that’s mainstream. And they can afford to buy Tik Tok. So there’s that at least.
- Comment on Google used AI to suspend over 39M ad accounts suspected of fraud 1 week ago:
Oh the third hand, Google fomented the scam ads that then took over that they are now using their AI tool to solve, and it’s come very late to the table to do so. They shouldn’t have to rely on AI to clean up their mess. They should have been facilitating protocols to vet ads long before now. At best the AI might be faster, but those results will still more than likely need to be checked by people (at the very least, appeals will be, but perhaps most of these scam ad companies won’t try to appeal).
With the use of AI to deny or approve healthcare insurance claims etc, this is exactly why we should be pushing for legislation that regulates AI. There’s too many people who are all “cats out of the bag” and not enough people going, we should be regulating this.
- Comment on The Government Has Already Won the Meta Case 1 week ago:
They haven’t “won” until Meta has to pay damages. And even then, that win is hollow because not only will Meta try this again if the penalty isn’t high enough, but they’ll use the advantages of our weak leadership to further avoid any serious repercussions.
- Comment on Why Are Gamers UPSET With The Switch 2?! - The Act Man 1 week ago:
It’s a bad time for an increase economically. But when you realize that we have been paying $60 USD for games since at least the 90’s and $60 in 90’s money is something like $150 in 2025 money, you realize just how good we’ve had it for a long time. And then take into account that games have become more and more expensive to make (yeah yeah I understand that a lot of the cost is down to a lot of non-game development relevant jobs), you don’t start to wonder why they didn’t increase prices before?
- Comment on Why Are Gamers UPSET With The Switch 2?! - The Act Man 1 week ago:
Some of them are just fine with the switch 2 hardware and even understand that game prices have been stagnant for some time. But Nintendo has been constantly showing us they aren’t a company we want to continue to support and if you couple that with affordability you’re gonna have a bad time.
They’re charging $90 for a game that plays better on non-oem hardware than it did on it’s original intended hardware, a game a lot of fans have already bought (who would still need to pay an additional $10 fee just to get the game running the way it probably should have run from the start).
I mean this in the best possible way, but Nintendo fans are avid collectors and they want this, but Nintendo dissuades them in multiple ways from showing support.
- Comment on Tech tariff exemptions are only temporary, according to Trump’s commerce secretary 1 week ago:
The sarcasm lost on you, or?
- Comment on Tech tariff exemptions are only temporary, according to Trump’s commerce secretary 1 week ago:
So, did the market tumble again after he said this nonsense?
- Comment on My imaginary children aren’t using your streaming service – Terence Eden’s Blog 1 week ago:
They have 2 good points though (even if I generally agree with you that this is a first world problem). The first is that this will likely show up for parents who have lost a child or potential parents having fertility issues and that does suck.
The second is that it’s just good UI to add a little box that says “never show this message again”. It wouldn’t take but the smallest iota of extra effort to do that. Annoying popups are honestly a first world problem. But they absolutely also show that these companies do not care, while these companies are trying to show they care.
- Comment on AI isn’t ready to replace human coders for debugging, researchers say 1 week ago:
Additionally, as others have said in the thread, programmers learn the skills required for debugging at least partially from writing code. So there goes a big part of the learning curve, turning into a bell curve.
- Comment on Windows Defender Anti-vitus Bypassed Using Direct Syscalls & XOR Encryption 1 week ago:
Thanks! Fixed!
- Comment on Windows Defender Anti-vitus Bypassed Using Direct Syscalls & XOR Encryption 1 week ago:
hackmosphere.fr/bypass-windows-defender-antivirus…
hackmosphere.fr/bypass-windows-defender-antivirus…
This is what I could find.
- Comment on Windows Defender Anti-vitus Bypassed Using Direct Syscalls & XOR Encryption 1 week ago:
It technically counts. It’s a cipher that uses the same key for encryption and decryption.
- Submitted 1 week ago to technology@lemmy.world | 24 comments
- Comment on Trump excludes smartphones, computers, chips from tariffs 1 week ago:
Waiting to see if the prices still go up, because between this and the fact that windows 10 support is ending in October, I’m sure these companies are still going to try to gouge people.
- Comment on France to ban students from keeping smartphones in schools 1 week ago:
They already had to “hide the phones”. Literally France already passed a law stating that phones aren’t allowed in elementary and middle schools for students. Those phones previously had to be kept in a backpack or pocket and weren’t allowed to be used on the premises.
This new law does one singular thing, so far as I can tell (which isn’t made clear in either of the articles I read). It actually actively makes students surrender phones at the beginning of the school day and locks those phones away in a centralized location the students don’t have access to.
The problem with that is what I have been saying in subsequent comments. There are protocols in place for what happens when a student breaks the rules. But A. They mention nothing at all about how they will know a student is carrying around a phone in their pocket or using it in the bathroom. And B. they mention nothing about the repercussions for skirting such rules and regulations.
Additionally, if this is about student mental health (as they claimed), it does absolutely nothing to teach them about the dangers of cell phones, nor does it even remotely teach them to moderate cell phone use.
- Comment on France to ban students from keeping smartphones in schools 1 week ago:
Don’t know any delinquent teenagers do you? And don’t even start with the “must be American BS” because I’d be happy to Google some news stories for you.
- Comment on The IP Laws That Stop Disenshittification. 1 week ago:
IP Laws that Enable Enshitifcation.
- Comment on France to ban students from keeping smartphones in schools 1 week ago:
Man. I read the article. You all seem to be taking what I said as “I think students should have cell phones in schools”. In actuality I don’t think there’s any reason for students to have cell phones in schools.
So my argument isn’t that I think the ban is bad. My argument is that this is a piss poor way of going about it that doesn’t really add any benefits (especially when you consider that the law preventing students from using cell phones in schools has been on the books since 2018).
So this is not an argument about what researchers found as far as differences in the mental health of students allowed to have phones (which is a big jump because at best the phones are tolerated in students pockets or bags not allowed to use them in school during lessons), vs those that aren’t. That part of what has been said up and down this comment section is irrelevant. It has nothing at all to do with my original comment.
I don’t care what governments recognize about a correlation between student mental health or well being and cell phone use. That’s not got anything at all to do with what I said.
If you’re disappointed it’s literally because you didn’t read.
- Comment on France to ban students from keeping smartphones in schools 1 week ago:
The article gives little to no detail about the law or what’s changed. It makes claims that this was a pilot program implemented in 180 schools whereby students were required to place cell phones in a pouch or locker they couldn’t access during school hours. It makes claims that this was successful, and therefore a ban will be implemented. It doesn’t say if this ban will use the same protocol (having students place phones in a locked pouch or locker they don’t have access to for the school day). It doesn’t state how this differs at all from previous laws that prohibit students from using mobile phones on school premises which were implemented in 2018.
It doesn’t explain what the “separation of student from phone” looks like, or what the repercussions will be for students found with a phone. It says nothing about protocols to properly store the devices (and what will happen in the event of an emergency where the device is a danger to students or property).
It gives literally no details, and doesn’t even link to the law in question.
A further guardian article I found says it is receiving criticism for some of the problems I have previously detailed (though not all of them). That same article strongly advances the idea that cell phone use is a detriment to children’s health and inference can be made that this is the main reason for such a ban, but this ban does not find mentally solve this problem in any way.
It doesn’t say they are expanding the implementation used in the trial nation wide. That is an assumption you made that the writer likely also made and didn’t follow-up. This is just a poorly written article full stop.
Your argument is terrible, and poorly defended. You only went and read the article after you started making arguments to me. I read the article before I made my first comment because I had a lot of questions that were not answered and still haven’t been answered. That’s literally because the media is doing a poor job of explaining this situation and the law in question.
- Comment on France to ban students from keeping smartphones in schools 1 week ago:
This is wasteful. It is short sighted. It does not fix or mitigate the problem and makes the problem worse for a lot of reasons that I can detail if you would like (but I doubt that will matter to you at all because you seem to be misunderstanding everything I’ve said).
This can be enforced. It will be detrimental to the school system as a whole. It is not a fix for any of the problems detailed. It doesn’t change anything as far as I can tell and literally nobody has been able to come up with anything to validate what it would change, how it would change it for the better, or why the current rule structure and protocols in schools would benefit from it in any way.
So I’m saying it’s shortsighted and either needs to be reworked, or criminalizing parents allowing their children to bring such materials into schools should be implemented instead.
They trialed 180 schools, forcing the student to hand over or otherwise stow these devices in a place they couldn’t access for the duration of the school day. And they have “evidence” that it helps with the “child well-being, and focus”.
So now they are making it mandatory for all schools? How? What protocols are they putting in place? I’m really curious. The article says nothing. It’s basically a really poorly worded press release.
Are the schools providing a place to house these devices? That would be a liability.
Are the schools banning the devices in the premises? If so, what are they doing with the ones that are going to be confiscated?
Is this law going to hold the parents accountable in any meaningful way (besides the potential inconvenience of having to pick up the phone at the school in person)? If so, that would be the only potentially beneficial part of a law like this.
What does the school do with such contraband? Can they turn it over to an authority like the police? This could also potentially be a beneficial part of making such policy into law. Depends entirely on how it’s implemented.
Why do people always assume criticism is " we should just do nothing? " What is wrong with looking at something and seeing that it might be flawed and speaking up?
- Comment on France to ban students from keeping smartphones in schools 1 week ago:
So when one of these phones start a fire because it’s been improperly kept and the battery has a thermal runaway event?
If the phone is always returned then literally the law does nothing. The phone is being given back to the student? That’s a failure in the implementation of protocol or policy. You can’t use that to claim my argument is invalid because it literally does not make sense in this context.
- Comment on France to ban students from keeping smartphones in schools 1 week ago:
Flip that argument around for me and tell me what that argument is. Because what it seems like it boils down to is a version of favoritism which will still exist and be taken advantage of under the law. What does this law fix exactly? How does this law prevent favoritism?
- Comment on France to ban students from keeping smartphones in schools 1 week ago:
I compared it to previous tech because that tech was also considered a distraction and labeled with a similar brush and handled in a similar way to the way phones are likely handled today and it’s important to understand and take into account what schools are likely already doing in order to facilitate learning and prevent such “distractions”. This isn’t about unsupervised access. This was never about unsupervised access. This is about the distraction that phones and other materials play in a child’s ability to learn. And as that it stands to reason that A. Schools already have implemented protocols to deal with this situation when it arises. And B. That this law doesn’t really do much to fix the problem, but does add additional liability because now regardless of whether or not the phone is being a distraction it must be confiscated and then held for a parent to pick up. Meaning that A. It must in essence remain in the same condition it was in when it was confiscated (and it won’t because it would have to be charged at regular intervals and with new phones logged into occasionally to prevent media on the phone from being wiped). So this adds liability for the school. What protections does the school and school administration have under this law?
The effect of giving children smart phones is not going to be in any way mitigated by this law. This is not a ban on cell phones for children under the age of 18 full stop. It’s a ban on children being allowed to bring cell phones to school.
- Comment on France to ban students from keeping smartphones in schools 1 week ago:
So, what (in France I know!) are you getting for said taxes that you were not getting before?
Because that’s exactly what I’m getting at. It is the schools responsibility to enforce the rules. The point is, it’s not the schools responsibility to take on the liability of what comes with that (ie. Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech with the ability to keep that tech in the same condition it was in when it was confiscated for an untold amount of time), it is the parents responsibility to make sure their children aren’t ringing such distracting material to school. And this means there are already likely protocols in place for distracting material. So what are you getting out of this ban?