Wew, my raging negativity will keep them from buying my data then.
Uncle Rico back there is enjoying the view.
The average person doesn't like violent civil unrest, shocking.
Also, I bet you can mess with the numbers to mean about anything you want by changing what classifies as "violent". A lot of people include property destruction in their definition of violence. But a lot of other people don't and only consider that property damage.
See the issue here is Google/Youtube still get to be the ones to decide what "may outweigh the harm risk". And the answer I bet will usually be whichever one serves their financial interests.
Which on one hand sure, it is their platform after all. But don't do me dry and claim you used lube.
Yeah, asking an LLM simple stuff that Google used to just give you at the top of the search before the AI Overview was a thing, like how old is X celebrity or for a high level example of code, or as a stupidly complex spell checker it is pretty good.
With what passes for news these days at most outlets I can't say I feel too bad for them that someone else beat them at their own game of feeding the masses surface level doom scrolling slop for engagement and ad impressions.
Hell, a large chunk of the junk being put out by these same outlets is trash written by the AI solutions they are paying for. Probably solutions from the likes of Google that is giving it to them at both ends.
Once the snake finishes eating its own tail maybe the good reporters will still have somewhere that pays them for the good work they do.
Are they talking about the changes that were made that allow a dev to prevent their app from launching if it fails a Play integrity check?
If so I don’t see that as a big deal since it is up to the dev to use it. OSS devs that want to distribute their app via apk download won’t enable it, and anyone distributing cracked apks will just disable that along with whatever other changes they are making.
My back. Its getting creeky though.
I still don't understand how Stadia got out the door the way it did. It was the exact same business model Onlive tried back in the day. And it predictably failed the exact same way.
content being watched) on my device(s) and share that information with Plex’s advertising partners
That is a honey pot rights holders will be falling over themselves to pay Plex for access to once they hear about it.
Been telling anyone that would listen that they need to get out of Plex since they implemented that first iteration of trying to require you to sign into your own self hosted server with a Plex.tv account. They were telegraphing what direction they were going in with that kind of user hostile move.
Lots of responses about how it was easy to get around so no big deal (or worse that they liked it for some coping mechanism reason) and that nothing else was as easy and feature rich as Plex so it was worth it.
Well now a few years down the road from that they are now going to use that beach head on everyone's Plex server they can to collect what is being watched and sell it to the highest bidder.
Won't monetize it "to death", just right up to the line of death.