FishFace

An ai model can’t “sabotage attempts to shut it down” if it’s not plugged into mechanisms that can actually do that.

What makes you say this is going into her profit? There’s a lot of competition in coffee shops, so if what you say it’s true there’ll be someone undercutting her.

It’s more likely that besides beans her other costs have gone up, too.

It also doesn’t make sense to maintain absolute profits instead of a percentage margin. Low margin means that you aren’t hedging as much against risk (if your stock is destroyed in a fire you have to pay the cost of the stock, which has increased) and aren’t paying yourself any more in the face of the rising costs YOU are paying every day.

This idea does not adequately address reality.

Presumably the difference is how many people are using one for work.

Anyway, you imply you’re completely fine with 70% of the population having no access to the uncensored internet?

How does the FBI compare to the federal/national police forces of other countries that makes it more susceptible?

Oh, so he doesn’t like it when statements and adverts might influence matters in his country.

Interesting.

It’s about 3% according to Wikipedia, meaning that government internet censorship works on 97% of people in this way. That means the 3% also can’t discuss what they learn with anyone except online.

If that’s your remaining objection then sure.

When I make that comment I was thinking of a single office.

I’m part of a distributed team which already makes this information available to everyone. It means when you go to message someone and it says they’re in the same office as you that you can just go and talk to them.

Right. Everyone. But only a minority of Chinese use vpns, and it’s a fraction of those who use them for anything other than work, from what I’ve found.

What strikes me is that this article would never have been written had the FBI not acknowledged the truth. We’re still reliant on the institutions that are being corrupted to help document the corruption…

Why is carol bitching about what she can see on teams that she can’t see looking around the office already?

Sounds useful? Weird to imply the purpose of this is to expose people not in the office. The people who care about that already know.

Does the average republican believe the government’s characterisation of this as the fault of the democrats? What about the average American?

Jesus.

As far as I can tell, you are arguing that it won’t become impossible to use a VPN. But no-one has said that it will be, and what I and others are trying to point out, is that VPN usage will become more difficult and rare. The vast majority of people will be restricted from viewing the content that the government objects to, whatever that is.

If you have anything to say about that rather than repeating the point that, yes, for the knowledgeable, for the tech-literate, for the people with the will and the spare time and the energy, VPN usage will still be available, feel free to. Maybe you think that actually everyone will use a VPN - why? why won’t a massive reduction in marketed options not reduce usage massively? Maybe you think that actually it doesn’t matter - why? why does it not matter that the average person will be unable to get information censored by the government?

You don’t seem to be accounting for the strategic value of the car industry, which is what the person above was talking about.

Lemmy doesn’t have that many users… How are you going to reach the people who aren’t arch users ;)

Seriously though, tech enthusiasts live a technological solution but a ban is a societal thing and it doesn’t have to be perfect. Look at China.

I don’t think walking wrecks your body, it’s what we evolved to do for days on end

It’s weird that you read the article then contradicted something in it implicitly, without acknowledging it.

They don’t say it’s impossible though, as you imply. Only that it’s very unlikely. So yes, it’s completely possible they have a buyer.

Ok, and how are you going to tell people that it exists? Not through YouTube sponsor slots, because you’ll get deleted quicker than you put it up.

So only a tiny number of people will know that your VPN exists. That’s “good enough” for the censorious.

Mmm. Given that you didn’t bother reading the article in order to have the context to respond to, I’m not inclined to take your word for it over the source.

The article even takes theft of a Picasso as an example. In that case you know it’s not being stolen to melt down. That’s not the case here.