Its Technical

[ap215]

FTC investigating Microsoft, Amazon, and Google investments into OpenAI and Anthropic

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opened an inquiry into the investments of Big Tech companies that provide cloud services to smaller AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic.

The FTC sent letters to Alphabet, Amazon, Anthropic, Microsoft, and OpenAI, requiring the companies to explain the impact these investments have on the competitive landscape of generative AI. The commission wants to “scrutinize corporate partnerships and investments with AI providers to build a better internal understanding of these relationships and their impact on the competitive landscape.”

https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/25/2405 ... -anthropic

[ap215]

Big Tech is the problem but you're going to run into a roadblock with the MAGA House.

Parent anger at social media companies boils over ahead of tech CEO hearing

The Senate is hauling in CEOs of social media companies to grill them over online harms to children on Wednesday, but parents and children’s safety advocates said the time for talking is over and Congress must act to protect children and teens.

Parents who became advocates after losing their children to harms they say were created by social media companies will be among the crowd at Thursday’s Judiciary Committee hearing. The hearing will feature testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, X CEO Linda Yaccarino, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel, and Discord CEO Jason Citron.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4 ... o-hearing/

[ZoWie]

That ought to be jolly, but since nothing of consequence will come out of it, I will pass on whatever air time C-SPAN reluctantly gives it. They have these same hearings every Congress session, and the facts are laid out well enough for anyone to comprehend them. Here's the catch: it's a known fact going in that the chances for legislation to come out of the discussion are very very low indeed. They will tell you that in a second. The desire is there, but the means aren't.

At one of these hearings, a Senator came with facts on the mess Instagram, or was it tiktok, had made out of his daughter, but still nothing happened.

People are being hurt worldwide, but the money is what matters in this economic system.

[ap215]

Yes you nailed it Z it's the old mighty $$$$$ that's the problem.

[ap215]

Senators say tech CEOs have ‘blood’ on their hands, Zuckerberg apologizes: Live updates

The chief executives of five major social media companies appeared before senators Wednesday for a highly anticipated hearing on the harms children and teens face online.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, X CEO Linda Yaccarino, TikTok CEO Shou Chew, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel and Discord CEO Jason Citron testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a Wednesday hearing entitled “Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis.”

https://thehill.com/business/4437994-te ... fb-tiktok/

[ZoWie]

Sounds like quite the show, though a show is exactly what it is. Maybe I will watch it just to see some overprivileged CEOs squirm.... again............

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68161632

Social media industry analyst Matt Navarra told the BBC he thought the hearing resembled many similar showdowns between US lawmakers and tech executives, with "lots of US political grandstanding" and a perfect photo opportunity provided by Mr Zuckerberg's apology.

He added that despite senators agreeing on the need to spur on bipartisan legislation to regulate platforms, the question of what happens next, and what exactly will come of this hearing, remains unclear.

"We've seen these hearings time and time again and they have often, so far, led still to not actually generate any significant or substantial regulation," he said.

"We're in 2024 and US has virtually no regulation, as was pointed out during the hearings, with regards to the social media companies."

[ap215]

All robocalls should be illegal it’s a start.

FCC seeks to make AI-generated robocalls illegal

(CNN) — The Federal Communications Commission is seeking to make AI-generated robocalls illegal.

The agency’s announcement comes after a recent robocall with an AI voice resembling President Joe Biden targeted thousands of New Hampshire voters and as US officials brace for artificial intelligence to make it easier to spread disinformation in the 2024 election.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/01/poli ... index.html

[ZoWie]

Good idea. Now that cell phones are the primary communication tool for just about everyone, it's time to update the laws and end this expensive mess.

In order to implement it though, there will have to be meaningful international legislation completely outlawing phone number spoofing on VOIP lines. That's how the offshore robocallers get away with it, and why blocking numbers doesn't work, and why SHAKEN/STIR hasn't worked, and why sometimes you get calls from total strangers with someone shouting "Don't call me anymore!"

[ap215]

Google will face a new U.S. antitrust jury trial in September

Google will face allegations of using underhanded tactics to secure its position as the world’s leading search engine in a jury trial set for September 9, brought by the U.S. Justice Department and a coalition of states.

The tech giant, which owns a 90% market share in search, is accused of paying massive sums to companies like Apple to make it the default search engine on products like the iPhone. The lawsuit argues that Google should be forced to sell its ad manager suite to make the search engine market fairer.

https://searchengineland.com/google-us- ... ber-437225

[ZoWie]

The fact that Google's prime asset is its ad manager suite is what went wrong with the Internet.

Tried watching Hulu lately? It has ads now, and lots of them. Same dumbshit commercials as on previous versions of TV. Not as bad as cable, yet, but give them time.

[ap215]

Safer Internet Day: tips and tools to stay safe online

FOX VALLEY, Wis. (WBAY) - Local law enforcement and other community leaders are reminding kids and adults about cyber dangers on Safer Internet Day on Tuesday. While the internet can be a valuable tool when it comes to communication and research, there is a darker side.

Gary Gartmann of Neenah is concerned about the safety of the younger generation; he wants tougher regulations to protect them online.

https://www.wbay.com/2024/02/06/safer-i ... fe-online/

[ZoWie]

CNBC is always good for a laugh in the morning (LA time). Today's was when they had the CEO of Snap on for a very long time. He made it clear to anyone who actually listens to CNBC's audio, a big if, that the Internet is now completely about selling advertising and/or self-promotion. It's the same business model as newspapers and TV. Content is what owners use to fill the time between paid ads in order to generate impressive statistics that they can quote when raising ad rates... again.

[ap215]

Why ‘Re-Bundling Has To Happen’: Breaking Down the New ESPN, TNT Sports and Fox Sports Streaming JV

Making perhaps the boldest alliance since NBCUniversal and the erstwhile News Corp. formed Hulu 16 years ago, Disney/ESPN, Warner Bros. Discovery and Fox Corp. on Tuesday announced the broad outlines for a new joint venture which will pool each of the media companies' linear sports channels into a virtual MVPD-like offering.

As former Fox executive turned sports media consultant Patrick Crakes told us, “the devil is in the details” for a service that hasn't announced a management team, a consumer price point, or even a name yet.

https://www.nexttv.com/news/why-re-bund ... reaming-jv

[ZoWie]

All sports will go to streaming, there's too much money involved for them not to. Not just high ratings from the games, but guaranteed ad sales from the currently exploding industry of online sports betting.

[Number6]

All sports will go to streaming, there's too much money involved for them not to. Not just high ratings from the games, but guaranteed ad sales from the currently exploding industry of online sports betting.

We're told by conservatives on this board how bad the economy is but is it really when people willingly pay for live streaming of sports? What companies like ESPN will make money of streaming subscriptions and off the ads they'll be showing at the same time. IMO, if you're paying to watch a sporting event on a streaming service then you shouldn't have any ads to see.

[Glennfs]

We're told by conservatives on this board how bad the economy is but is it really when people willingly pay for live streaming of sports? What companies like ESPN will make money of streaming subscriptions and off the ads they'll be showing at the same time. IMO, if you're paying to watch a sporting event on a streaming service then you shouldn't have any ads to see.

People will spend money on things they don't need. Now with sports betting in so many states people will pay to watch the game they have their $20 bet on.
Now we know the real reason leagues especially the NFL went all in ( pun intended) on sports gaming. It wasn't for the ad revenue. It us for the pay per view

[Number6]

People will spend money on things they don't need. Now with sports betting in so many states people will pay to watch the game they have their $20 bet on.
Now we know the real reason leagues especially the NFL went all in ( pun intended) on sports gaming. It wasn't for the ad revenue. It us for the pay per view

60 Minutes did a story on online sports betting last Sunday. The online sites are getting young people addicted to gambling. I did some football betting back in the late 70s but I didn't do that for long realizing picking X-number of winners of games was almost impossible. Sports betting and casinos have one thing in common, the odds always favors the house meaning the bettor will lose more often than they'll win.

[Glennfs]

60 Minutes did a story on online sports betting last Sunday. The online sites are getting young people addicted to gambling. I did some football betting back in the late 70s but I didn't do that for long realizing picking X-number of winners of games was almost impossible. Sports betting and casinos have one thing in common, the odds always favors the house meaning the bettor will lose more often than they'll win.

I am a gambler but am opposed to how wide open it has become. Nothing upsets me more than having a drink with someone who is obviously an alcoholic or gambling with someone who has a problem or obviously cannot afford it.

I budget a specific amount of money each month for gaming. $750 uo from $500. Once it is gone I don't borrow from next month. If I win that doesn't mean I can spend more next month.
I treat it like a draw against commission the way car salesmen used to get paid. With deficits wiped clean at the end of the month.

Plus it is my hobby as I drink very little, don't smoke don't use drugs including pot don't golf and especially don't bowl.

[gounion]

I am a gambler but am opposed to how wide open it has become. Nothing upsets me more than having a drink with someone who is obviously an alcoholic or gambling with someone who has a problem or obviously cannot afford it.

I budget a specific amount of money each month for gaming. $750 uo from $500. Once it is gone I don't borrow from next month. If I win that doesn't mean I can spend more next month.
I treat it like a draw against commission the way car salesmen used to get paid. With deficits wiped clean at the end of the month.

Plus it is my hobby as I drink very little, don't smoke don't use drugs including pot don't golf and especially don't bowl.

Our pro sports have fully embraced gambling, and it detrimental to our nation, AND to the sports involved. It's just a matter of time before a huge fixing scandal erupts.

[Glennfs]

Our pro sports have fully embraced gambling, and it detrimental to our nation, AND to the sports involved. It's just a matter of time before a huge fixing scandal erupts.

There has always been sports gambling and the fact is there wss a far better chance of a game being fixed before it became legal.
They have now embraced it for the future pay per view revenue.

[gounion]

There has always been sports gambling and the fact is there wss a far better chance of a game being fixed before it became legal.
They have now embraced it for the future pay per view revenue.

That is a mistake. And you're a fool if you think there won't be a scandal.

And it's dishonest now, since we know teams will throw games to get a better draft pick. They should be open to being sued by bettors who bet expecting the team to actually try to win.

This WILL blow up in the leagues face, I'm quite sure. They should not be in the gambling business.

[Number6]

I am a gambler but am opposed to how wide open it has become. Nothing upsets me more than having a drink with someone who is obviously an alcoholic or gambling with someone who has a problem or obviously cannot afford it.

I budget a specific amount of money each month for gaming. $750 uo from $500. Once it is gone I don't borrow from next month. If I win that doesn't mean I can spend more next month.
I treat it like a draw against commission the way car salesmen used to get paid. With deficits wiped clean at the end of the month.

I go to a local Indian casino about twice a year and I stick to the slots and bingo. I'm pretty lucky winning at bingo. When I go to Las Vegas I stick to the slots and bingo.

Like you, I take a set amount of money, cash, and once that's gone it's over. I've never spent all of my gambling money.

Plus it is my hobby as I drink very little, don't smoke don't use drugs including pot don't golf and especially don't bowl.

You should take up bowling. It's a fun sport and you meet and socialize with a lot of people. I've been subbing in two leagues for the past month for someone who is visiting his family in the Philippines. The leagues are predominantly Filipinos and most of them know me by name and on sight and they accept me. We talk and joke around with each other. It's a good sport to meet people of different occupations who you'd normally not come in contact with. Some of the occupations include military, CPAs, doctors, engineers, clerks, managers, etc... Of course, bowling requires a certain amount of athleticism and knowledge of the sport but with an instructor you could pick up the basics easily. BTW, subbing yesterday I did shoot average, 193, for three games and then bowled six practice games with two friends scoring 180, 210, 214, 214, 233, and 235. I used two new balls, three games each, continuing to learn how to throw each one. I'll use one of them tonight in one of my to regular leagues.

[Number6]

Our pro sports have fully embraced gambling, and it detrimental to our nation, AND to the sports involved. It's just a matter of time before a huge fixing scandal erupts.

I think you're right. I can imaging where the casinos and sports betting sites will work together to adjust the odds making betting on the underdogs more attractive for bettors. What will happen is the underdog will lose, the bettors will lose the point spread as well as the over-and-under score. Congress will investigate but the gambling lobby will prevent them from taking any action.

[gounion]

I love to play blackjack. I got to where I played a lot, and for good money, too. And I won at least as much as I lost. But you can't win big payouts in blackjack. But one year my wife and I went to Vegas for a week, and I took $1400 for our gambling budget for the week.

It took me about half an hour to lose it all, betting at least $50 a hand. I mean, it was on can't miss bets, too. splits of tens and more splits, against the dealer's six showing kind of bets.

I was pissed. At myself. I mean, it was throwaway money for us, it wasn't milk money. But gambling for money at a casino was no longer fun for me. I now play blackjack computer games where I'm not betting real money.

I would NEVER bet on sports, and wouldn't touch the apps. Again, I'm personally against that way of betting, and I'm against the league's sponsorship and promotion of gambling.

We do spend about $20 a week on the two main lotteries. It's a money loser, but we get some enjoyment out of it.

[Glennfs]

I love to play blackjack. I got to where I played a lot, and for good money, too. And I won at least as much as I lost. But you can't win big payouts in blackjack. But one year my wife and I went to Vegas for a week, and I took $1400 for our gambling budget for the week.

It took me about half an hour to lose it all, betting at least $50 a hand. I mean, it was on can't miss bets, too. splits of tens and more splits, against the dealer's six showing kind of bets.

I was pissed. At myself. I mean, it was throwaway money for us, it wasn't milk money. But gambling for money at a casino was no longer fun for me. I now play blackjack computer games where I'm not betting real money.

I would NEVER bet on sports, and wouldn't touch the apps. Again, I'm personally against that way of betting, and I'm against the league's sponsorship and promotion of gambling.

We do spend about $20 a week on the two main lotteries. It's a money loser, but we get some enjoyment out of it.

Blackjack is both easy and boring. You play double deck only and play 100pct by the rules 100pct of the time. It like most gambling is all math and zero I got a feeling.

Then you bet two units with every time you win increase the bet by one unit until you lose a hand.

When you lose a hand you bet one unit again increasing by one unit after every win.

Then restart the process with every new shoe. That way you are counting the cards without actually counting them.

It is all rote which makes it very boring. You also have to be at a table where nobody changes up their game. For example hitting not hitting a 16 or even worse hitting it sometimes and not hitting it when you got a feeling. Doing that messes up the count.

If you play 100pct by the rules aka correctly according to math the house has a 6:5 advantage. Manipulation of your bets gives the player the advantage.