https://github.com/CodeWithCJ/SparkyFitness

...or didn't they care, like Apple, and just cashed in before the shitstorm?

Took them half a year and public pressure to develop something. 3 years for a joint standard (DULT) with google after google developed something by themselves.

There is always pressure required for those things...

Also: countries have been subsidising less useful things too.

...or just have them beep if there is an issue.

AI won't go away, it will just end up being a monopoly.

People don't choose to funnel wealth to billionaires like a donation. A lot of it comes through low wages, rent and asset ownership. You can't donate money you were never paid.

We have a different tool for the billionaires to support. It's called taxes and this is what they really really hate.

> But very few people actually want world peace or a child in the third world getting a meal, as opposed to say, another can of coke or to stay home and get Doordash.

Buying a coke doesn't mean someone prefers it to a feeding a child. It means the coke is on the shelf for 2€ and world peace isn't.

> Agreed. It's par for the course and not necessarily evil. But worth being aware of the hypocrisy of deciding what "right" is, for others.

Alright we agree on laws, now every law decides for others. So the question isn't whether someone decides, it's who. A parliament can be voted out. A lobbyist or an algorithm team can't.

> Are you equating algorithms to fraud? That doesn't seem quite right.

The Margin Call point was about the film you linked.

Besides that: the proper term for what algorithms do is "engagement design". Which is more like a slot machine: built to exploit weaknesses people don't fully see in themselves.

There are even laws regulating it based upon scientific research See Article 25 of the Digital Services Act of the EU: https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act...

You can charge up good and then do all you want. Got ya.

So how much is murder?

PS: your drift to ad hominem shows how weak your arguments are.

Your phrase wanted to play it down, just like the second sentence.

Just like it's ok for your usual non-pedo rich man to influence and to circumvent what people actually want through manipulating politicians for example to lower taxes for themselves, change regulations, exploit their employees?

Is it so easy for you to justify that?

Exploiting peoples short attention spans and addiction. There are papers on it these days and I'm quite sure he knows those all.

> They are giving people what they want

It is 2026. We know that this kind of optimisation is exploiting weakness in peoples minds. I mean, you say it yourself: "It's the people who want things that aren't in their own best interest.". This is why algorithms don't measure what people want but what keeps them watching. Beast's algorithms don't ask people what they want.

> And when you take it upon yourself to "do good" in ways that deviate from what people want, you are taking the position of "the people don’t know what’s best for them, but I do."

This is usually how a prospering and successful civilisation works. You develop a justice system, laws and regulations so people don't smash their heads until their families are extinguished for example.

> The "they" in your "they chose to make the world worse," is the majority of the human populace.

I'd say there is a huge difference between Bob influencing George so they eat at a certain diner because he likes the waitress and Google running a quasi monopoly on online videos.

My comment was about what Billionaires do with their money and them lobbying for tax cuts, pushing down wages as far as possible or exploiting mechanisms to trap them into addiction is not "what people want".

Further reading:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/digital-addiction-evidenc...

https://www.nber.org/papers/w28936

@Edit I hope you saw the whole movie because dumping assets they know are nearly worthless on its own clients and counterparties before they find ou is not "giving people what they want". It works only because the buyers don’t know what they are buying.

Hope because it is a dead end ideology and believing shows that evil peoples horizon doesn't reach that far and there is a wall they're unable to cross. In the end this will be their end too.

Yes sure, there is no society right now which is not based on greed (it is a very basic view but, let's work with it for the moment) however the reason we, as a humanity thrived and got so far is because it was more then greed. People got together beyond their families, later beyond their clans to grow bigger. Those who preferred greed did not succeed as a society.

Friedman lists Einstein. Einstein developed his special relativity in 1905 while employed at the Swiss Federal Patent Office in Bern. That was literally a government bureau. He studied at ETH Zurich, a federal, state-funded university. His work was built on works of others, published in publicly funded academic journals. Science IS shared work. And I mean...Einstein wrote on this topic: “Why Socialism?”.

The mass market for his cars depended on public road building. Federal Aid Road Act 1916 he became so successful because of those governmental bureaus and state and society as a whole.

My point is: just because we don't have a system working without greed, doesn't mean that it is some natural law of the universe. We can thrive to develop this society because there is progress in it for the whole of humanity.

While in selfishness, anti-social behaviour and greed, there is only doom and hate. As we see clearly these days.

PS: just to prevent a common derailment technique at this point: I DO NOT believe Socialism is a solution here. I grew up in a socialist state and I know that it is evil just like all other iterations of Socialism have been. It is just another version of greed where the greed doesn't go to greedy investors but to greedy party members.

Imagine what all those billionaires could do good for humanity with all that money they can never spend. Instead, they chose to make the world worse and gain even more money they can't spend until they die.

It would be sad if it wouldn't be so terrible.

I could only find news on the opposite: https://www.oedigital.com/amp/news/540213-siemens-gamesa-ceo...

A study found that most of the contamination these days doesn't come from Chernobyl anymore but from nuclear weapon tests.

https://www.infranken.de/bayern/warum-wildschweine-in-bayern...

PS: hunters with contaminated boars have to pay for the disposal themselves but can get the money back from the state. So, like with everything around nuclear: in the end it's the taxpayer who has to pay for it.

https://www.bayern.landtag.de/www/ElanTextAblage_WP17/Drucks...