It’s not actually law and that’s just what companies want to be the belief for them behaving reprehensibly
Garnish2087
- 0 Posts
- 4 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
Cake day: February 25th, 2026
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Garnish2087@fedinsfw.appto
Technology@lemmy.world•How to burst the AI bubble: Strike at its roots. Sci-fi author/tech journalist Cory Doctorow on his new book, The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI.English
7·1 month agoIf you’ve read this post or kept up with his blog occasionally the book treads familiar grounds. I sill think it’s worth the read to have a condensed version.
Doctorow guides you through understanding the AI bubble by proving you don’t need to know the technical jargon or latest developments. All you need to have as a guiding framework is “what technology (actually) does and who it does it to.”
Garnish2087@fedinsfw.appto
Canada@lemmy.ca•Chinese EVs arrive on Canadian soil as federal memo warns of privacy risks (archive.org link)English
20·2 months agoGee sure would be nice if it weren’t against the law to properly look into the software and reverse engineer it so that couldn’t be a problem

This is a frustrating pposition to be in, particularly when few people are willing to offer viable alternatives in such threads.
I don’t want to let a purity test be the reason I impulse switch to a less effective VPN, but don’t want to indirectly fund things I don’t support. Yes, money I spend on Mullvad might go towards shit I don’t want, but what else is on par with Mullvad that doesn’t have some other downside?