I think the way to go is that you do such big backwards incompatible refactors gradually. Eg you want to make all the callers specify some additional parameter. So first you create a version of your API which populates this parameter with some reasonable default. Then old API is marked deprecated and is just calling new API with that default value, and then you inline everywhere the old api. After a while it’s possible to remove the old API.
That said you need of course some tooling to somehow discover all the callers reliably and do those migrations on a large scale.
Easier to do if all the code is owned by one org but harder if you can’t reliably tell who’s using your APIs.
However having centralized migrations is really saving a lot of work for the org.
Weren’t only the platforms that failed to register with the government banned? As I understand it, if they comply with the new regulations, they should be unblocked.
I also work for a FAANG company and so far most employees agree that while LLMs are good for writing docs, presentations or emails, they still lack a lot when it comes to writing a maintainable code (especially in Java, they supposedly do better in Go, don’t know why, not my opinion). Even simple refactorings need to be carefully checked. I really like them for doing stuff that I know nothing about though (eg write a script using a certain tool, tell me how to rewrite my code to use certain library etc) or for reviewing changes
I love how the EU introducing privacy laws and fining american companies when they break said laws is bad and the EU is overstepping their boundaries, but the US forcing the sale of a foreign company is totally cool.
This shows that values such as “freedom of speech” are only key words used to enforce US policy in other countries. For such a long time it was advocated that free speech is an important thing and good in and on itself. Now it turns out the free speech is good only as long as it’s US who dominates the information market.
“Now”? The US and state governments constantly try to violate free speech. Texas, Florida, and California all had major laws truck down for 1st amendment violations in the past year. And it’s been like this since the first Adams administration
How is this an attack on free speech? What individual is getting punished for their speech by the government? There is hardly a lack of spaces online for you to say just about anything.
Free speech includes the right to receive/hear speech. TikTok contains a trove of speech that doesn't exist elsewhere. Banning it is unconstitutional, and I'm confident the courts will agree.
Google and Meta have limited what political content they'll show to you, feels like a pretty clear attack on something the establishment doesn't like but justifying it with the boogey man of communism: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240737627/meta-limit-politic...
Your response has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment. If a private company wants to limit discussion on their platform they can. Facebook is not a right. If it's limiting the speech you don't like, leave.
I’ll happily agree it’s not a first amendment issue, but I think it’s a problem. A systemic analysis here reveals that, in effect, the discourse is clamped down on and censored in a way not to dissimilar in its consequences from actual government censorship. The vast majority of the population engages in discourse in spaces where some topics are made off limits, meaning they won’t be exposed to them. I do think we should be concerned about that when it has tangible negative effects.
If you go into a grocery store or a bank and harrass people or behave badly, you will get banned. Try getting a bank account if you have a felony for bank robbery.
There was a guy who received a lifetime ban from Safeway for driving through their garden displays and breaking windows in their stores.
The US does ban people from using banks. See also: list of specially designated nationals, etc.
It is as much immoral as it is moral. It's a neutral idea like stopping on a red before a right turn. Some places it is deemed right and other places wrong. You might always stop even if laws forbid it or you might not stop.
Okay. My point is someone made an argument about "freedom of speech" on moral grounds and then you cite a legal gotcha "well, legally that doesn't apply to the whole world". You're right, but the legal gotcha doesn't matter when arguing over morals (or "immorals").
I think it shows that politicians are short sighted and immoral - nothing new there. Freedom of speech is still incredibly valued and constantly fought for.
I thought that only authoritarian regimes are blocking foreign medias and that’s a bad thing. At least that’s sth US was preaching. It seems freedom of press or free market is only good when it serves you.
Not really discovering anything new here. Just showing that countries only use values at their convenience.
I imagine that as with any covert operation it’s hard to prove who’s behind it. Blowing up a bridge is also not something that will cause a war easily.
There’s nothing controversial about it. Usually people get to know other people at university or at work. To meet someone outside of your everyday environment requires extra effort. I know it from my own experience as well (trying to find a girlfriend while studying CS).
