jdw

LOL.  I knew what I'd find here in the comments.

True thinkers will no doubt enjoy this:
https://www.amazon.com/Politically-Correct-Bedtime-Stories-Modern/dp/002542730X/

A friend gave me a copy in 1994.  Yes, even back then, we had the "PC" madness.  It was as laughable back then as it is today.  

I can't help but muse when I see defenders of Political Correctness not recognizing that their own objectives actually seek to "rewire the brain."  It seeks to change language for what they deem is "the greater good."

The definition of the English word "pistol" pertains to a real gun, not a squirt gun.  Only those with extremely delicate sensibilities hop aboard the PC bandwagon to redefine what a "pistol" is.  If it is a toy, you can say "Water Pistol," but the word "water" in that word pair really establishes what the thing is all about.

It doesn't matter if you like or dislike firearms.  It doesn't matter if guns are good or bad.  It's a matter of language and word meanings.  "Pistol" doesn't mean a kiddy squirt gun, even if squirt guns are often made in the shape of a pistol.  If I want an emoji for "squirt gun" those should be the two words which define it.

Imagine people who dislike Lions because they often kill others animals seeking to replace a Lion emoji with something more fluffy, kind and totally disconnected to the actual animal!  That sort of lunacy is what using a squirt gun emoji is when someone is searching for a pistol firearm emoji.

I think there are times when people may want one emoji or the other.  But my freedom to choose shouldn't be limited by the PC police.  Give me both choices.

paulmacintosh said:

America needs gun control, not encryption hacks or backdoors.

"Gun control" is not the same as "banning guns," which is perhaps what you were suggesting.  You see, based on reports I have seen, the gun was legally purchased by the shooter's father.  Therefore, "waiting periods" and similar "gun CONTROL" measures would not have prevented the recent assassinated attempt.  The kid used his dad's gun.  And yet, to ban guns and reclaim them would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.  Americans have long been in staunch opposition to that, which is why people only talk about gun "control."  But again, that only goes so far, and doesn't do much to control "illegal" guns readily available on the "street."

But getting back on topic...

As I said in my earlier post, the phone seems to have been hacked or otherwise accessed by the FBI.  I've not read about the FBI complaining about Apple and the lack of back doors, so I guess they either found a backdoor or used the dead body to access the phone.  In any case, I don't see this as a renewed call for Apple to create back doors.  As long as the FBI finds its own way in, they seem to be content with that.

Not sure why the dialog about this matters now that the news media is reporting it has been accessed (i.e., "unlocked, with contents visible")...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/15/trump-rally-shooting-suspect-phone-fbi

How that was done is not clear, but obviously, the found a way.  Could be Msuberly was correct. Using the dead man's body to unlock it might work.

Exactly.  And the fines they impose is all a part of the governmental money-grab.

The problem is that if Apple stands to lose more money by pulling out of these thieving countries compared to staying and cutting their earnings to comply with new rules, it makes no sense for them to take stronger action.  The only reason these governments have power to do this kind of "organized crime" is because they know their tech goliath victim won't pull out. If Apple did pull out, the government could do nothing, and they would lose everything from that tech company.

At some point, the tech giants need to turn a blind eye to investor sentiment (I saw this as a long term AAPL investor), and fight back.  Pulling out would scare these governments to death because they would then realize they have no power at all, and they would need to treat more carefully in the future, otherwise risk losing the tax revenue they already had.

Just because these tech giants are big and wealthy doesn't mean governments around the globe are right in this act of organized extortion.

If every single tax dollar went to better society without waste and abuse, this would be a different matter altogether.  But "tax and spend" is merely a lofty goal in the minds of "big government is our friend" proponents.  It's not reality.  Just as absolute power corrupts absolutely and requires limits as a result, so government must be limited, and their iron fist of taxation and regulation limited as well.

ChatGPT4o is stupid, quite literally.  I've been trying to use it almost daily over the last month.  Daily, it makes serious errors.  I deliberately ask it things I know the answers to.  It makes mistakes, I correct it, it apologizes, and that's it.  And here's the FUNDAMENTAL FLAW...  It told me it corrects itself (1) only for me, and (2) only for the single session I am speaking to it.  In other words, my corrections are 100% in vain!

That is a needle that pops the enormous bubble of HYPE surrounding AI!  Not only is AI stupid in making all these errors, but we aren't allowed to train it so it can learn and be better for EVERYONE!  That to me is crazy.

Sure, sure... There would need to be vetting in place so it won't learn lies and think such is truth.  But that is within the capabilities of AI, I would think, being able to check hundreds of sources online to confirm or deny what individual human users are trying to teach it.

So on some level, ChatGPT4o is as brain dead stupid as SIRI.  For example, I've trained SIRI countless times how to pronounce my daughter's name, but it still can't do it. And yes, I know about the Contacts trick that is supposed to work but doesn't.  In like manner, no matter how much time and effort you invest in correcting ChatGPT, the people behind it refuse to allow it to LEARN from users, which means it is only as useful as its developer makes it, which is ridiculous in my opinion.  I want a LEARNING "AI."  It doesn't need to be sentient, but it needs to learn what is correct and what is incorrect, and that can happen much faster if global users can aid in that process, rather than expecting its developer to do it.

The promise of AI is far too restrained, in my opinion.  Yes, there's some usefulness to it, but I'm constantly having to check the results to see if what is says is correct, which almost nullifies the time savings I hoped to get by using it.