> However, I sold it all in June 2024 at $25 a share as they started to pull in military contracts (and lots of them). These FDEs were too damn effective. Not a fan of military contracts but I guess thats where the money is. Nevertheless, morals first.
Yeah, I don't know about this. Imo, from as soon as you decide to invest in the stock market, you're signing away your ability to call morals as a rationale for any further decision. Where does the line start and end? Would you sell MSFT because of their involvement in Gaza? Sell a broad market index because a company there is doing something 'immoral'? No matter how you invest, you should automatically assume the company is doing something awful.
My opinion though, to each their own. An interesting article!
> Would you sell MSFT because of their involvement in Gaza?
Yes.
> Sell a broad market index because a company there is doing something 'immoral'?
Honestly, this is a lot harder to do. It depends on your definition of immoral but there are some smaller indexes and ESG funds that vet individual stocks before inclusion.
You need to use both the style controls and custom instructions. I've been very happy with the combination below.
Base style and tone: Efficient
Answer concisely when appropriate, more
extensively when necessary. Avoid rhetorical
flourishes, bonhomie, and (above all) cliches.
Take a forward-thinking view. OK to be mildly
positive and encouraging but NEVER sycophantic
or cloying. Above all, NEVER use the phrase
"You're absolutely right." Rather than "Let
me know if..." style continuations, you may
list a set of prompts to explore further
topics, but only when clearly appropriate.
Reference saved memory, records, etc: All off
It's glorious. The year has finally come. It's nice to feel excited about tech sometimes, especially when the company isn't completely horrible, and more competition! Great! Microsoft's move really, Sony and Nintendo are doing pretty okay!
Yep, we're not! (From a hc'er). Zach announced that slack has gifted us half a decade of enterprise+. Whilst slack's behaviour is worrying, it probably wouldn't make sense to cut all ties. Either way- another 5 years to migrate! :-)
I feel like there's a bit of survivorship bias here. Not saying that vibe coding is completely useless, but you still have to review the code it produces in order to make the most of it really. It isn't completely autonomous (yet) to the point where it can scale to any of the examples you mentioned imo.
In principle, not at all. But there is no way to do this properly at all. No matter how secure the companies that do this say it is, it's another possible vulnerability.
You can't play whack a mole with the internet. People will always find a way to move smut or whatever on the internet. It takes no time at all to spin up more and more sites, and there's a million ways around them (vpns, etc).
All it does it just push people to more and more fringe sites, when moderation is likely to be lax and the content more extreme. Ideally it wouldn't be viewed at all, but it's just how the internet is.
It also sets a terrible precedent for censorship- in the UK, we've already seen, on Reddit for example, subreddits dedicated to quitting addictions being age gated, and it'll only get worse.
The European Commission's proposed interim solution for age verification (ageverification.dev) is actually pretty good vs the shitshow of the US and UK.
It works like this:
1. You contact an age verification provider (e.g., national eID schemes, banks, or mobile operators) and provide proof of identity, which they will verify possibly against government databases or whatever, etc. Once they confirm your age they will issue you with a bunch of Age attestations. At this point you don't even know where you will use these, so that info literally cannot be sent to the provider. The attestations are a JWT-like envelope with a payload conceptually equivalent to `{"nonce": "LARGE_RANDOM_HEX_STRING", "age_over_18":true}`, signed with the provider's public key. (The actual implementation is more complex).
2. This is stored in a local app, which will guarantee each attestation only gets used once (to avoid linking user across relying sites). There is no special authentication of the app in the protocol with the replying site, so you can write your own. The Commission provides an open source reference app. There is a standard protocol for communicating with verification providers, however it is not mandatory, so using the reference app might not support all verification providers, but should support a variety.
3. When you want to visit some site needing age verification, and you already have a verified account, you just sign in, otherwise, that site will use a standardized protocol to request proof from the app. The app will provide just the attestation token. The relying site does not get any info about your identity, other than the attestation token. Plus of course, the relying party must accept any age verification provider approved by the commission, not just its preferred one. The EC's solution also supports the app providing the relying site a Zero-Knowledge Proof of having such a token, which makes it possible for the relying site to learn the user's identity even if colluding with the age verification provider.
Try what exactly? Its illegal to stream movies for free, but there are hundreds if not thousands of illegal streaming sites. How would porn access fair any better at being regulated away?
If you're using a Samsung device then you can use Screen Curtain within Samsung's Good Guardians application on the Galaxy Store, which allows you to play media with the screen turned off.
Triggers most of the wrong people. You know, those that aren't even mentioned by someone him in this case but are still offended like they're being tortured. THat sort.
Yeah, I don't know about this. Imo, from as soon as you decide to invest in the stock market, you're signing away your ability to call morals as a rationale for any further decision. Where does the line start and end? Would you sell MSFT because of their involvement in Gaza? Sell a broad market index because a company there is doing something 'immoral'? No matter how you invest, you should automatically assume the company is doing something awful.
My opinion though, to each their own. An interesting article!