It’s hard to get someone to understand that which they’re paid to not understand. Seems there’s all kinds of Facebook shills up in this thread.

Edit: oh, and would you look at that? Right out of the gate with the exploit stage in full effect .“Threads” has been an internet term for these forum discussions for as long as the internet has been around, but now zuckerfuck wants it all to himself. Now a billion upon billion different forum posts are going to inadvertently mention his stupid-ass platform.

Right… because Facebook has never bought out or destroyed competitive platforms.

Meta can’t even keep Facebook or Instagram functional. They get worse with literally every single update. New things are broken every time I visit. They need to take care of what they have, not go looking for other things to fucking ruin. Stupid-ass anti-trust pig dogs.

It’s really disgusting. It was a great platform for keeping in touch with long distance friends and family. If you kept your friends list trimmed to people you know, then it was actually a really fun platform. Now it’s like all the worst parts of corporate internet all glommed together on a single site. I see maybe 1-2 of my actual friend’s posts, and the rest is all absolute crap. Hundreds of billions of dollars wasn’t enough for zuck? Nope! He just had to go and squeeze every last cent out of the site, even if it meant burning it to the ground. It’s not even worth visiting anymore. I was still visiting to see my memories, but now he’s slowly breaking that functionality too. Congratulations Facebook, you’re awful.

We already saw that with nothing more than two words. Trump started the “fake news” craze, and now 33% of Americans dismiss anything that contradicts their views as fake news, without giving it any thought or evaluation. If a catch phrase is that powerful, imagine how much more powerful video and photography will be. Even in 2019 there was a deep fake floating around of Biden with a Gene Simmons tongue, licking his lips, and I personally know several people who thought it was real.

If you’re a senior engineer, then you should have a team of juniors doing most of the coding. Your job is to architect, peer review, meet with stakeholders, etc… At least that has been my experience. Unless you are on one of those small teams with all senior engineers and then you have to do all of the above, and the coding too. I’ve had that experience as well.

Yup. That plus steal all your contacts and anything else they can get direct or indirect permissions for.

Definitely! I work at a computer 8-10 hours per day, 5 days a week. The last thing I want to do when I’m done working is sit at computer some more. I do almost all of my browsing on my phone. Firefox Mobile Nightly, plus NextDNS, plus Nord VPN, plus uBlock origin, plus a fake user agent string. I’m pretty secure on my phone.

“Here’s a website that you needed to install on your phone to see!”

I’m out of the loop. What happened? Did someone decompile their code and find definitive proof of a throttle for Firefox?

Also pushing pop-ups everywhere, except this time they’re part of the site and we can’t easily block them.

Well that’s handy. I wonder what determines if it can relaunch a program or not. Does it retain your actual work state though, or just relaunch those programs? On my MacBook if I tell it to restore stuff when I shut down then it takes me back to exact same state, sans some VPN logins. Unsaved text editor files will still be there, whatever I had open in vs code will be active, all my browser tabs will restore, etc… It acts more like a hibernate than a shutdown.

Shutting down and re-booting doesn’t retain your active work state. Mac OS will at least launch everything you had open if you want it to, but Windows (at least up to 10) has no such feature.

That’s an important distinction. Whenever trillion dollar tech companies say they’re not going to do something hugely unpopular and selfish because of public sentiment, what they really mean is they’re not going to do it right then. Instead they back off, do something like this to get everyone’s attention focused elsewhere, and then they’ll push the original unpopular idea anyways, but quietly.

They backed off their web drm, because it was hugely unpopular, but also because they remembered they own chromium and can just disable adblockers directly. They tried to over-engineer something that requires everyone else to adopt a new standard, when all they ever needed to do was use a sledgehammer.

I don’t want to block things people post on Twitter about subjects of interest, I just don’t want my feed constantly flooded with news about Twitter.

It’s frequent enough that I still see a lot of posts despite having filters for “Musk”, and “Elon Musk” and “Twitter”. I figured I probably can’t block “X” without blocking a lot of unrelated posts since it’s just a letter in the alphabet. I wonder if that was intentional.

They don’t want the possible negative backlash of being associated with unhinged extremist bullshit. If unhinged extremist bullshit was popular enough to be profitable then they’d be all aboard. Corporations do whatever is profitable.

That is not what this is about. This is about if humans perceived actual human faces more human than AI generated faces. The result was that humans perceived AI generated faces as human more often than they perceived actual human faces as human. So clearly the technology does work.

That human female 84% is pretty cool looking.