Musk has already been banned as a topic on tech communities in 4 instances I’ve seen personally. I get folks are tired of him and I find him insufferable, but he is often relevant (unfortunately) to current events, so I don’t think wholesale bans of him are a good idea. There are plenty of topics I find annoying, but I don’t tell people to ban the topic from the community just for my personal preference.
Like I think trump is a cringe inducing piece of shit and don’t enjoy seeing him everywhere. I’d love a filter, I don’t expect communities to ban him as a topic.
I mean anything anyone does on the internet is tech given they do it on the internet.
Musk is largely just being a shitty ceo doing ceo things, kinda notably for cultural reasons, sure, but musk news probably better serves as more business news than tech.
He owns starlink, Twitter, Tesla, and SpaceX. Whether we like it or not all of these have huge bearings on their respective industries.
And before people started hating musk, again rightfully so I’m embarrassed I ever liked him, you couldn’t go a day without something about SpaceX and people getting all excited. This is purely about the person, not the relevance of the topics.
If y’all could somehow come up with a nuanced soft ban on “his personal life“ and politics or whatever, I guess that’s a decent compromise? But that just sounds tedious and people will bicker. And also his politics unfortunately have an impact on how Twitter is run, so you would have to find ways to separate those things out. It’s just seems kind of needless.
I mean imagine if we couldn’t spread the word/learn of what he was doing with his starlink satellites and Ukraine/Russia. That stuff is really important.
Anything about the daily runnings of a company, it’s personnel and other business decisions is not news about tech, no matter what the company is. Tech news should be about the technology. New breakthroughs, new coding language releases, new hardware etc.
Edit: and to be a tech company is a company that creates tech, not always just one that uses it. I could be on the side of social media companies being tech companies, but that doesn’t mean all news about said companies are tech news, because they are not.
There are no “tech companies”, there a companies that deal with new and interesting technologies more than others, but that doesn’t mean that anything that company does is “tech news”.
Obviously the answer to “what is technology and what belongs in /c/technology” is subjective, everyone will have their own definition. But if your definition includes anything that social media companies do then you may as well just include any company with a website in your definition of technology.
If meta rolls out threads, that’s tech news because it’s a company experimenting with a new technology. If xitter wants to change it’s subscription pricing that’s not tech news, because it has very little to do with technology.
Adding a subscription payment isn’t tech, there are more companies than Starlink, Twitter, Tesla, and SpaceX, and we aren’t posting everything that a company do, just with Twitter or Tesla because they are popular and Elon Musk a meme… Mercedes for example has better autopilot than Tesla, Porsche has better electric vehicle than Tesla, but I don’t see people posting about that every time. I think there is an excessive posting of his stuff, and he just loves to get fame. I suppose that’s why he does stupid and crazy nonsense stuff like naming a good and popular brand name as Twitter to X… it’s like destroying all what was already built just to keep his name on news.
I’m just saying that asking that to people makes no sense, just say what you want to say… we aren’t here to define what is what but to share our thoughts I suppose… So don’t ask me those stuff and just say your opinion or teach us with your knowledge…
Ok sorry, reading it now seems you’re trying to relate the “telecommunication” with “social interaction” which could be done physically in person. Is that? Or what you wanted to say with that Wikipedia link?
I got about the same out of this guy. He acts so cocksure when dismissing others opinions but can’t even seem to formulate his own counterpoint. It’s just a one-sided discussion and this person has zero to offer to the conversation other than nitpicking and Socratic questions that lead nowhere.
The product itself (the code) may be considered tech but the company’s/employee’s/executive’s business/personal/anything outside of the product dealings shouldn’t be. If running a website makes any information related to you tech related then literally every company is a tech company. Meta’s stock price dropping because Zuckerbot farted in a kindergarten classroom isn’t anything tech related. Subscription fees being added or increased isn’t tech related.
How would you define tech with regards to social media and how does that definition not include any other company running a website that you can interact with?
The product itself (the code) may be considered tech but the company’s/employee’s/executive’s business/personal/anything outside of the product dealings shouldn’t be. If running a website makes any information related to you tech related then literally every company is a tech company.
Or what you are expecting to get? Just say it yourself already and stop asking to people…
The irony here. You’ve made zero argument other than “not uh!” and expect me to keep repeating what I’ve already stated in good faith. I focused on social media companies because that’s what you had an issue with. Nobody disputes whether companies like Microsoft, SpaceX, Intel, and Apple are tech companies. The dispute here is whether Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc are really tech companies and more specifically whether any news surrounding these companies should be considered tech news (which you’ve already been given examples of) rather than just news about their actual tech products.
So social media companies don’t apply scientific knowledge? Are you serious?
Nobody stated that.
Once again I’ll ask you to define what you think social media companies are and how that definition doesn’t include every other company with a web presence. Are you or are you not able to do that?
Only if they become spammy, I suppose. I already sent you this video where explains how Elon Musk is just re-inventing things that already exists, but what he’s doing with Twitter seems like a 15 years old kid playing with his new toy… and isn’t really doing anything interesting or new to society.
Yeah right, but you aren’t saying it at all, you’re just making it long and asking people what is tech… And other people are already telling that anything can be tech too… So the “ban musk spam” is mainly because those news aren’t actually any interesting. And I suppose when they say “social media is not tech” they are talking about that they are using tech infrastructures and methods, but the communication between people isn’t a tech stuff.
I was trying to use that as a Google alternative for months before someone turned me on to Kagi. DDG just isn’t anywhere near as good as Google, Kagi is. Hell, Kagi’s personalization options make it better than Google ever was, IMO.
DuckDuckGo is not even close to being in Kagi’s league.
I won’t lie, I was really dubious on the idea of paying for search, but after the demo I really came around and signed up for the year. Kagi results are far and away better than anything else on 90% of my queries. The only thing I miss is, when you use google in your searchbar, you can use it as a calculator. E.g. if I type “13 * 42”, the top suggestion is “= 546”, you don’t even have to press enter… So I got really used to using that as my default calculator. But Kagi just blanks you, so I’ve had to start keeping a desktop calculator open all the time lol
10 Create new awesome service
20 Get a lot of users
30 Build a great community
40 Start running ads to offset costs
50 Get VC funding
60 Add new features that enable increased monetizations 70 Make old core feature more annoying to use.
80 Push users to new features
90 Kill important old core feature
100 Push old users out
110 Increase monetization of the service
120 See user numbers dwindle
130 See new competitors start
140 Count of existing userbase to keep service alive
150 Slowly move into obscurity 160 Become a joke brand that is forever tarnished.
170 Never really die
180 goto 10
I’m also greatly concerned by the Chromium engine supremacy on the Internet.
There are interesting privacy-focused Chromium-based browsers but I still refuse to use them. Google shouldn’t have a near-monopoly on web rendering engines and on web “standards”. Firefox is the only proper competition I can get behind.
So what they’re saying here is that it’s cheaper for them to drag rtr laws to court everywhere for years than it is for them to make devices repairable. Or, in other terms, planned obsolescence makes them so much money that they can spend billions in lawyer fees and still make a profit.
Yup, or the Apple play which is just walk right around these regulations with some additional tricky bullshit while outwardly 'supporting' RtR. If I was a lawmaker I would be so fucking livid about this circumvention I would come back even harder but I guess I don't know a lot about that process.
Yeah at least make the corruption worth it but it's hard to up the price when the guy next to you would take a trip to Delaware to vote the way they want
I think it's probably an Indian English-ism. It's understandable but sounds weird to speakers of American English (and maybe other English dialects).
A more natural sounding title (to an American English speaker) would use "Microsoft is making" or "Microsoft is planning to make" rather than "Microsoft might want to be making".
Without the users, this platform has no value. No one is interested in it already, except for nazis, bigots, and crypto bros. Paying for this garbage makes no sense
not allowing Department of Transportation officials to view the model’s source code
That is the problem. Using proprietary software that can't even be reviewed outside of blackbox testing in the government's contract process lets terrible software companies who won lowest bidder contracts is a recipe for disaster.
All government contracts should include the ability to review the code if they don't just require it to be open source. The company can do a lot of business supporting their software without needing to keep it secret, and if secrecy from the government is vital to their business plan then they should stay out of the public sector.
Exactly this seems like a matter of the train set manufacturer going to war against the regulator, with the operator and the public stuck in the lurch.
While you’re technically right, I don’t see a material difference between paying with cash and paying with data (Verge sign up is free, but it’s still sign up).
technology
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.