You can either pick a battle that you cannot win (assuming you’re not the one in charge of the many millions such a migration would cost). You can just deal with it, or you can look for better circumstances.

You say you’re convincing people, management sees a trouble maker who’s spreading unhappiness.

In my opinion, it’s better to save your energy for something where it can make a change, not a futile attempt at trying to make an institute drop Outlook or Teams, or whatever shitty software we’re talking about.

But hey, this is just my advice. You do you.

Uhuh. Let me know how that works for you, out in a real corporate setting.

In my experience you can say all you want (if you’re lucky), but in the end, switching providers on a large scale costs a lot of money. And their money is more important than your discomfort.

But the closest thing to the 6 TB Microsoft offers, would be the 10TB from filen at €400 a year. Whereas with Microsoft, it’s only $120 a year and you get all the other services. Say what you will about the quality of MS products, but they are the cheaper option here.

I’m guessing the vast majority of its users are students and corporate employees, neither of which get a say in which software is used.

Everything is political.

That’s debatable, but it might be in your life. However, not everything political is tech.

And my reason for having high standards is that lowering them would expose me to too much garbage.

The reason I’m subscribed here, and not on lemmy.world!technology, is that that place will allow anything that gets clicks - even if it’s only tangentially related to actual tech.

Hence, the amount of rants about Musk is through the roof.

I had higher hopes for this place, but it does require moderation. Your post, with all due respect, is just political circlejerk clickbait.

If the person who tweeted that was the head of a fertiliser company, do you think this post would be fit for a gardening community?

Hmmnope. Replacing it with Russia, or Trump, or whichever political entity didn’t make it any less political for me.

Let’s face it: this post does vaguely concern a tech company - in the sense that it wants to highlight the political opinion or quote of a figurehead of a tech company.

So tell me honestly - is this mostly about tech news, or is it mostly about politics?

I think you accidentally posted this on technology, but you were looking for politics.

This guy gets it.

Full disclosure: I’m only responding at this headline and the blurp posted here. I haven’t seen the - oh lord, 3 hours?! - video. But I’m sure it will be very interesting for someone.

Ehm. So?

Just because [bad people group X] think that [bad thing Y] is bad, doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

There are good reasons to be anti AI (creators rights, for a starter , and at the same time, it’s not going to go away, and it will also improve our lives in ways that we cannot fathom right now. It’ll need (better) regulation for sure.

Having said that, I really don’t think inflammatory posts like these (Y is bad because associated with X) are going make things get better.

If you want to be pedantic about it - if the NSA, or any such agency demands to place a [backdoor of any sort] in an American company’s datacenter, they have to comply.

So, no, they (meta, Google, etc) won’t be handing over the data knowingly. But those devices placed there for sure aren’t running Minecraft servers.

We recognize that our business is critically dependent on sustaining the trust of customers, countries, and governments across Europe. We respect European values, comply with European laws, and actively defend Europe’s cybersecurity. Our support for Europe has always been – and always will be – steadfast.

None of that matters, since they still have to comply to American laws, which means they have to give access to European data if the US government requests it.

It’s kinda like good guy Hitler, because he killed Hitler.

Trump’s major achievement might be that the rest of the world starts relying less on the US.

That’s the kind of nuanced response I expected from lemmy about something becoming less left wing ;)

Yes it is. Although I personally have far less moral objections to it.

To elaborate:
OpenAI scraped data without permission, and then makes money from it.

Deepseek then used that data (even paid openai for it), trained a model on that data, and then releases that model for anyone to use.

While it’s still making use of “stolen data” (that’s a whole semantics discussion I won’t get into right now), I find it far more noble than the former.

Thank you for your insightful comment, it tells me a lot. Mostly about you, but still.

I only know the guy from the thumbnails and dead eyes. But this really feels like reaching for a justification to hate.

If you’ve seen (also past tense) any movie by, for example, Bryan Singer, you have consumed art made by a pedophile.

I’m not defending him (I honestly don’t care about him), all I’m saying is that without any context, these kind of statements are kinda cheap and meaningless.

Yeah, if making money is evil, this guy is worse than Hitler!

Cue.

For those of us that are not familiar with all the (future) online laws worldwide, based on what clauses will they be shutting down?

I skimmed the article, but couldn’t find the specifics.

Oof.
“Why? Because Trump”

Can’t wait for these four years to be over. Not because I like him, but because I dislike him being brought up time and again for the sake of engagementbait.

Cars as a service? That might be debatable.

But taking the human factor out of driving cars and trucks is going to save millions of lives worldwide. That’s the inevitable safety progress I was talking about in my comment.

It’s not just the automotive industry that would be worried, that’s incredibly short-sighted. The transport sector, however, should be terrified. The amount of chauffeurs required in a few decades time will be just a few percentage of today’s amount.

And that, in turn, will have major ramifications for the social securities (UBI, anyone?)

But sure, let’s start with the American car makers, so they can lobby against this inevitable progress in safety.

Meanwhile, in the real world, creators just want to setup an account and sell their content. Not having to deal with payment processors, setting up cdns port handling customer support themselves.

There’s enough to complain about how OnlyFans impacts society (like creating fake interactions with customers who think they’re interacting with the real deal). But them wanting a cut for doing all the technical middleman stuff is actually reasonable.

No need for these kind of inflammatory comments, the article itself is bad enough.

If you read the article, you would have seen that, yes, the perpetrator is serving a 20 year sentence.

About that 20% cut - I’m not going to argue about what amount would be fair, but for that money they do handle all the payment, distribution and infrastructure. In that sense it’s more comparable to Steam, Apple, Google etc.

But that’s getting pretty off-topic.

Interesting title.

What could OnlyFans have done to prevent this?

2007

Absolutely.

The only reason Chrome has been slowing down the deprecation of 3rd party cookies is because it would make it harder to do privacy invading tracking, and thus, would make Google less money.

No browser benefits from tracking. Only ad companies do.

Meanwhile, nobody has attempted to give a definition. Lots of downvotes all around though. 🤷🏼‍♀️

I figured zionism had to do with an ideology, not a profession. Generalisations like these are not helping.

Yup, that’s it.

I just told you I I’m not sure of the definition, so asking me what I think it means is pointless. Though I’m pretty sure it’s not a group you can join like ISIS, right?

I’m still not sure what it means, judging by the comments here it (murderer / terrorist etc) it does seem to be used as a slur. So yeah, using the definition instead would be useful.

Yeah, I don’t think they would have been fired if they had just held a vigil without shitting all over their employers brands.

It’s easy to nitpick all the details in the video, but keep in mind that 2 years ago generative AI videos consisted mostly of shape shifting mosaics that vaguely resembled the things they were supposed to be. And now we’re down to “in this frame the 10x10 pixel airplane has a third wing”.

That doesn’t excuse the use of copyrighted material to get to this point, mind you. But to claim that this tech is going nowhere is just a contextless circlejerk.

Saw a great video about this (project is still ongoing).

It’s one thing to claim that the current machine learning approach won’t lead to AGI, which I can get behind. But this article claims AGI is impossible simply because there are not enough physical resources in the world? That’s a stretch.

It’s “funny”, because without that injection from Google, Mozilla would surely die. And the only reason Google hasn’t stopped doing that is because then Chrome (Blink) would be more likely to be treated as a monopoly.

Yay, mob justice!