I’ve been using Windows 11 constantly since release over multiple machines after decades with Ubuntu as my primary OS. In that time, I’ve had a number of undocumented updates and found a few settings that changed, but it wasn’t a very big deal or maybe I’m just significantly better at error handling than the average user. I choose not to follow the herd and in this case, the herd is angrier than need be.

Granted, I’ve never released perfect software in my life, have no intention of starting and tend to be sympathetic towards others who share my flaws. Maybe that’s a sign that I’m actually better at handling errors than the average person.

I’ve never worked in technical publishing but I have a few acquaintances who do. Adding chapters on AI is pretty close to industry wide for new writers. Experienced writers with sales figures have a lot more freedom.

The thing is, it’s not about getting chapters published on AI. The publishers are keenly aware that AI is using their content to steal their market and so anything they publish on AI will be obsolete before the final manuscript is published. It’s about getting potentially difficult first time authors to quit before their first third gets approved - that’s when the author is owed their first advance.

It’s a lot easier to slaughter sheep if the most docile select themselves.

What a weird comment.

People use analogies constantly. That was an analogy - it wasn’t meant to be taken literally.

I’m having a lot of trouble with your comment. The word ‘resell’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the issue - there is absolutely nothing about reselling it anywhere within the linked issue.

I’m into the full meal deal theory. Her own excuse is a complete lie, she doesn’t understand the story and somehow doesn’t even understand journalism. In this case, 60 Minutes asked the White House for comment and they refused. If a party to a story can kill the story by not being involved, that’s not journalism it’s PR.

People who don't understand the press don't get handpicked to run the press by the billionaires who own it.

She understands that she's full of shit, and she's paid to be full of shit. The Ellisons aren't spending billions of dollars on this because they want you to be well-informed.

I can’t figure out why you’re being simultaneously argumentative and dismissive. But you’re being argumentative and dismissive while talking about a totally different subject than the person you’re replying to.

EU citizens would have reason to be concerned about this. It’s not clear how an EU citizen would deal with this nor is it clear this would even be prohibited since there have been some recent rulings that muddy this. Nor is it even clear there would be a UK response since certain kinds of analytics are fine under UK GDPR.

You’ve taken something very interesting and open to interpretation and reduced it down to circular arguments. That’s boring.

I guess if I disagree it seems argumentative, not sure how to disagree without others believing it's argumentative, it kind of is by definition. It isn't my intention. Regardless.

> > > Hmm the guardian has gone "accept tracking or subscribe".

> > I didn’t know you were allowed to do that with cookies.

> UK site. Not in the EU any more.

This is the initial context for me in this conversation. As I understand things, whether UK is in the EU or not, they can still have laws active in the country that were introduced while the UK was in the EU.

Then someone said:

> ... or no one bothers to enforce them any more?

Which I guess is where I lose track a bit of what the actual subject is. We're talking about UK laws, that they may or may not still have as active in the UK, but at that point I already suspect that they're talking about some "EU-wide laws" or similar instead, which for me muddy the waters.

> Who's going to open a case and where?

Then this appears, which has obvious answers; if you're a UK citizen and someone broke UK law, you report to UK authorities. If you're from $EU_COUNTRY, then you report it in $EU_COUNTRY.

If you're in $EU_COUNTRY and UK company breaks your national laws, same applies as for any non-EU country, you report it in $EU_COUNTRY.

Going back to the initial question, can The Guardian ask "let us track you, or pay to visit this website"? For entities covered by the DMA, the answer is clear: No (so Meta cannot do this, which is why they're changing it). Otherwise, the answer isn't so clear, yet.

Now I don't know what I'm being dismissive about, I feel like I did my best following how the subject seemingly changed across comments, but I can acknowledge I lost track of the initial questions, for that I apologize. I guess I loose track of the discussion as the questions seems to get less specific, rather than more specific.

That’s a poorly written roast.

Is there a reason you hold onto data for thirty days? That’s a non starter for me - I don’t have a clue who you are or what this is even used for.

I mean your profile is public and probably already injested by other LLMs... So what are you protecting? Anyone could add your username in there...

It’s easy to criticize a police investigation after the suspect has been caught. But in the moment, none of the responding officers had a clue what they were walking into. Brown is a large campus in a strongly residential neighbourhood with many hiding spots; and people were ordered to shelter in place.