They have, but they are not in charge. Apple’s goal is to make money; everything else comes as an afterthought.

Oh, thanks for the information sir! I forgot that I tried that option to see what would happen, now I know. xd

If I’m interpreting the CEOs Post post correctly, the severance package is only applicable if your contract gets canceled prematurely or if you are being laid off. If your contract ends and is not renewed, all obligations are fulfilled, so there is no severance package since the contract simply ends. (Timel/Project based contract). I could be wrong though. It would make sense to have project or time-based contracts - these layoffs mainly affect the “permanent employees.”

I agree — some gamers do not understand that the gaming industry is grown up now, or at least old enough to play in the big boy money league. And the big boys are not in the business to make games; they are in gaming to make business. Inherently different decision-making process.

Also, before someone buys something, someone has to sell out. So why do we always have a problem with the buyers, aka investors, whose intentions are clear but not the sellers?

I’m not so sure – YouTube is much larger than you might think. It’s not the video platform you grew up with anymore. No one in this world can match the backlog and content density/diversity of YouTube, not even all streaming services combined. People complaining that YouTube is dying because a few YouTubers “retire” from their main gig or that it’s not the same anymore don’t understand how YouTube works. They might not comprehend that the time of their “bubble” has come to an end. When this happens, there are already five new bubbles/niches that are even bigger, and you might not have heard of them, but they are more successful than their “predecessor.” The old bubble is still there to consume in the backlog. Someday in the future, AI will have a field day with the data accumulated via YouTube.

It is transforming, for sure, but I don’t think it will destroy itself completely. In a sense, you can say it will destroy whatever view you had of YouTube as a platform because it is not what it once was.

To my knowledge, YouTube will hit the billion-user milestone this year (Netflix currently at ~250 million paid users). If we look at other data trends from streaming services, it suggests that YouTube will grow more over the coming years. I don’t know how anyone can match YouTube as a whole. In certain niches, sure, but as a whole, it would be like fighting windmills. There’s a reason no one tries to tackle YouTube as a platform and only goes for certain niches.

I mean, if I were an investor looking at this, I would also get excited about making this change - much less risk, less cost, less customer support, etc., all for basically the same output in revenue. In other words, if I cut the small business (6% of value but over 100k accounts to handle) out of the model, I can make more money because the cost reduction is higher than the loss of revenue. And in the long run, when “big game customers” jump ship, I just downsize some more. I also don’t need to invest but can be sure it will generate a certain amount of revenue, as long as I do not squeeze the relevant customer groups too hard. This strategy is very feasible and relatively risk-free. I am not a fan of it, but I think a lot of software companies will go this way after they establish themselves in a market.

Well, I hope you are right. xd

It just seems to me like a monopolization of the market by the big tech corps, which won’t be beneficial to the majority, but at least a few billionaires will get richer.

I was recently invited to the Google research center where they presented their new AI assistant features, which should be coming this year. It was weird; it was at the same time more capable than I thought and more restrictive than one would assume. It’s like not even Google knows exactly what to do with it, or what it should be able to do, or what exactly it is capable of. I also once got to try an “uncensored” / “unrestricted” information model, which was actually a bit scary but far more useful than any of the current “restricted” chatbots. I’m sure AI will change things up, but how, when, and why I don’t know, and the more I find out, the more unsure I am about predictions, besides the one that big corps will try to monopolize the market.

1. Why do you care this much about online comments in such a niche community where only already opinionated people are?

2. Yeah, if I were a moderator and needed to go over 1000 comments in today’s climate, I would delete more than necessary just because you never know. They do not put as much thought into it as you think. It was most likely just like this:

A mod goes over comments that got reported, reads the first line of the comment, sees it has direct insulting language (the “fuck them” line), and deletes it.

No political intent or conspiracy, just a mod being a mod. Could be that there is some bias, but then you can do nothing anyway in that case; it’s just a small echo chamber then.

Hakuna Matata, my friend.

The funny thing is, copyright doesn’t even matter; at least half of the world’s market couldn’t care less about copyright, especially if it’s from the “west.” They certainly won’t suddenly start respecting copyright law. They will use and develop AI without the restriction of copyright. All this talk about copyright and the law, and all the copyright suits against AI and tech firms, will be fruitless since we either forget copyright like we used to know it, or we get left behind in development because we need to respect the copyright of everything and make contracts with every big outlet, etc. Big tech knows that, so they walk this gray zone walk to still train AI on copyrighted material but somehow proclaim they are not copyright-dependent.

I’m not saying this is a good development, just that I think we need to reassess how we treat copyright on a fundamental level under the current development structure of AI.

We need to slow down the development of AI and hinder monopolization of the market. My guess is it’s too late, but we can still hope that maybe this time it will be different.

This happens rarely, and if it happens, the chances of it being someone we know from the media are almost 0; that would be all under the table. The “best” are the ones you don’t hear about because they are too busy working on actual stuff, same in most science fields.

Most of them are recruited in “normal” ways; there is much more talent around these days. No need to engage with criminals and put them on actual sensitive stuff. Also, they get paid more than you might think; the people leading these projects are not stupid and make a simple mistake like underpaying talent they still need.

Please, you are so right - but please do not engage further with this kind of posts in the future, just report them - the OP of this post is 1 day old, most likely a bot account - Lemmy needs better moderation, and that fast, it’s getting worse and worse, day by day.

oh yeah for sure could be a reaction to the opium wars

• https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/hong-kong-and-the-opium-wars/ -

It’s never the drugs that make a society erode; it’s a symptom. If you have a big drug problem in a country, most likely it’s related to much bigger issues at the core. Like in the Opium Wars, it was the British Empire that basically drugged China as a means to get what they want. It’s not like they discovered drugs and then just stopped doing anything else; we humans had drugs and used drugs since we know about them.

Some argue this tactic is still very much in use today, hence the fentanyl crisis, which seems to be fueled by China. It’s a destabilizing tactic. That’s also part of why China and other Asian countries are so strict because they know firsthand the effectiveness of literally drugging your foe to gain an advantage. This does not mean China and co do not have their own drug market; they have a pretty vivid drug scene.

Also, as an example, Japan or China, yeah, sure, you can’t buy weed; they will basically curb-stop you legally. But you can drink as much alcohol as you want, smoke as much tobacco as you want, and drink as many caffeine drinks as you want. These are all recreational drugs with a much higher impact on society than weed, yet they are totally legal and accepted by everyone or are even traditional.

I think he’s pointing out that in the future, this could lead to regulatory measures by the government because they get pressured by the big corps that AI locally is dangerous, but AI with big corps is all good and the right way. Which is an understandable concern. It’s not about you using whatever model you’re using; it’s about the broader philosophy of how AI should be integrated into our world. He’s saying the big corps are trying to monopolize the AI market, which is valid because that’s what’s happening right now.

Yes, and you are entitled to your own opinion, but that does not change the facts. No, the influence is not “what if it is there” – it is there, plain and simple. That’s not up for discussion. It’s public knowledge that Tencent owns 40%, and Tencent is a government-controlled entity. It does not matter if they “abuse/use” it actively or not. It sounds like, in your mind, influence is only relevant when you use it actively, which is not true.

I never said it was not for profit. I said you invest to gain influence, which is true by fact, not an opinion. If I buy a significant number of shares in a company, I do so because I want more than money; I want influence on decision-making. I do not think the Chinese government is only interested in monetary gains; do you think that’s their only goal?

And again, do you believe a country/government able to indoctrinate any business that wants a share of their market, like the Steam example, is only invested for monetary gains and nothing else?

Tim Sweeney can do and decide many things, but opposing the Chinese government is certainly not one. And I don’t know how you imagine influence, but having 40% of a company is something I call influence, wouldn’t you? Even if they can’t tell him how to run the business, he sure as hell will do nothing that could worsen the relationship between him and his biggest investor, aka Tencent. And who is behind Tencent? The Chinese government.

In other words, the market is nearly saturated now, and Evernote makes its money with business people and institutions who often adhere to the “don’t change a working system” principle regarding their “tools.” Most of them will just keep paying if the functions are needed and already integrated.

It’s a model most of these types of companies adopt sooner or later if they are for profit, and investors see the potential of this business as almost exhausted. It’s: grow, establish, grip, and squeeze.

If you really want, you can use almost any cloud-based solution that allows you to sync folders, with some caveats.

I use Obsidian with my Google Drive; it took me about 5 minutes to set up, and it works like a charm now. However, you need to set it up on every device you plan on using for synchronization. Also, you cannot work on the same document on two devices simultaneously. Otherwise, it works as you’d expect.

It’s definitely messier than the Obsidian cloud, but for my needs, syncing it via Google Drive is more than enough.

There is one if you use the discovery features. Well, it’s not a dislike, but I think it does the same thing, maybe?

lol XD, let me tell you, if someone is financing something like that, they sure as heck expect something in exchange someday.

So, you believe a government powerful enough to make unaffiliated companies bow to their liking won’t leverage their investment?

Why do you think they invested? Just for fun?

You invest to gain influence, not to have less influence.

I get your point and understand where you’re coming from. I think you’re right from a certain perspective.

But I want to add that it doesn’t matter that they declared they want to stop shipping to Israel; if the entire trade route is affected, it’s just terrorism, plain and simple. Securing vital trade routes and sending a clear signal that this conflict won’t spiral is crucial for stability.

Also, this is an international issue (trade route security), not purely an American one. While the U.S. could handle it easily by themselves, it would lead to more significant problems and conflicts in the long run.

I just believe inclusivity is always better than exclusivity.