Now, it’s all just bots talking to bots to learn how to sound human.

The great thing about that is that dead lithium batteries will have value

One day with my mountain of disused electronics, I will strike it rich.

There’s consent from the shopper and the retailer, so it’s not unethical

Two parties can enter an willingly agreement that’s ultimately harmful for both. For the shopper it will limit choice and for the retailer, they’re signing their own death warrant.

Right up until the moment that Comcast does a deal with Facebook to get its agent to not help you get a better rate and perhaps instead lock you into a more expensive contract instead. Remember Facebook’s business model is ads.

The other criticism I’ve seen levelled against them is that they fire almost everyone who works at a company they acquire to run it bare bones.

I knew someone who didn’t see the point of wearing any, yet they had a noticeable “funk”. Turned out they’re anosmic.

DirecTV’s screensavers will let a user create an AI avatar of themself by scanning a QR code on the screensaver

You are expected to volunteer your face. And interact with the ads. Because you are getting this device to watch ads. Apparently.

she’s not as crazy as him

Reading her wiki page, I can’t find much to differentiate the two 🤷‍♂️

Ah, you’re going for the Pete Townshend defence…

This is why I upgraded my Windows 10 laptop to a Fedora 42 one. 42 is obviously the biggest. And thusly better than Debian.

I brought game xyz to enjoy it, not to keep it forever.

If you can’t keep it forever, you didn’t buy it - as in take ownership of it - you just rented it.

The only person liable here is the shooter.

On the very specific point of liability, while the shooter is the specific person that pulled the trigger, is there no liability for those that radicalised the person into turning into a shooter? If I was selling foodstuffs that poisoned people I’d be held to account by various regulatory bodies, yet pushing out material to poison people’s minds goes for the most part unpunished. If a preacher at a local religious centre was advocating terrorism, they’d face charges.

The UK government has a whole ream of context about this: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf

Google’s “common carrier” type of defence takes you only so far, as it’s not a purely neutral party in terms, as it “recommends”, not merely “delivers results”, as @joe points out. That recommendation should come with some editorial responsibility.