Long term/ extended stay hotels exist that will provide these things. But the vast majority of people don’t even consider those. They rely on what they can search up on Google for the area and algorithms don’t take into account that you need to bring your dog, want a separate set of bedrooms in the same suite, or that you’re looking for a kitchen.

I see this every time AirBnB is mentioned and every time I wonder if people even know extended stay hotels exist.

I believe at least one of the anti-trust lawsuits Google lost was brought by the previous Trump Administration.

This is largely the problem with most social media, and generative AI has made this problem worse just like it has made other pretty terrible facets of human interactions worse.

Anyone who was paying attention on reddit the last couple years (even pre-pandemic) could see that bots were taking over. The main difference (love mods or hate them) was that mods who’s subreddits didn’t rely on bot content to stay active were moderating the bot problem as best they could.

Now, most of those mods aren’t mods anymore and the vast majority only really want the engagement anyway so of course they’ll let bots basically take over.

Reddit the corp never cared about keeping bots off the platform and they care even less now. Bot engagement counts. Bot views of ads count. Removing bots actively hurts their bottom line in the short term so of course they aren’t going to do anything with that.

The actual human users on Reddit don’t care because they’re there to consume. It doesn’t matter to them if the posts they engage with are made by bots or not.

That’s honestly hilarious though. They made Marvin and don’t see the problem with that.

Buy things up in the fallout. The power vacuum the collapse will create will be ripe for anyone who comes out financially ahead in such a situation.

Yeah. I wasn’t really sure if this was the answer or not, just that I had seen a potential conversation asking similar questions or along the same lines, and others seemed to have had a take on this.

Tech giants welcomed Trump because they thought he would enable two things. A roll-back of regulations, and to increase profits. The thing is, the monkey wrench in this situation is twofold. The first problem is Elon Musk being placed in a position of power that enables him to detrimentally effect the profits and regulations of these industries to benefit his companies first and foremost while also being detrimental to these other tech companies. We see that a lot with the data he’s been stealing from all kinds of government agencies under the guise of saving the government money.

This means that even regulations that are removed that pave the way for these companies to enact policy or even just products to enrich themselves are hindered by Musk being a direct competitor to a lot of them. Facebook/Instagram vs Twitter, Tesla vs Ford, SpaceX vs Blue origin.

The second problem is the tariff situation. It cuts off a majority of tech companies from the cheap manufacture of components, devices, and even just consumer electronics that a lot of tech companies rely on in order to get their products into the hands of users so they can siphon up user data.

A third problem is that Musk has his hands in so much stuff that he’s pressuring the government to place his companies first in the running for. SpaceX and Tesla especially for things like bullet proof vehicles (where previously the government had contracts with other automotive manufacturers), and SpaceX being used for missions that NASA might have previously handled using Boeing products etc.

All these tech companies went to Washington DC to “Kiss the Ring” with the intention not just of avoiding a lot of legislation being leveled at them by previous administrations, but also in the hopes that they could position themselves as Musk had. For further government contracts. Because long after Trump is dead and buried, the contracts would be lucrative.

But that assumes they survive all the upheaval his administration is causing (and not just survive it, but come out largely economically and financially unharmed).

Anything may be possible, but the market has to survive in order for these companies to remain supreme.

https://lemmy.world/comment/16545391

Trump’s first administration filed the lawsuit that led to the court determination that Google held a search monopoly. The result of that is the DOJ filed a proposal that Google sell chrome web browser to another entity. Google has been fighting this proposal tooth and nail.

So the answer is, I’ll believe Meta gets broken up when I see it.

That’s true. But that doesn’t mean they don’t get to choose a better option than Facebook or Google or Amazon. Amazon at the very least isn’t a main competitor of theirs because Amazon doesn’t have a short form video product that’s mainstream. And they can afford to buy Tik Tok. So there’s that at least.

They haven’t “won” until Meta has to pay damages. And even then, that win is hollow because not only will Meta try this again if the penalty isn’t high enough, but they’ll use the advantages of our weak leadership to further avoid any serious repercussions.

This article assumes Tik Tok wants to sell or that they are going to sell to a company that’s basically a direct competitor. I don’t understand this assumption.

They have 2 good points though (even if I generally agree with you that this is a first world problem). The first is that this will likely show up for parents who have lost a child or potential parents having fertility issues and that does suck.

The second is that it’s just good UI to add a little box that says “never show this message again”. It wouldn’t take but the smallest iota of extra effort to do that. Annoying popups are honestly a first world problem. But they absolutely also show that these companies do not care, while these companies are trying to show they care.

Additionally, as others have said in the thread, programmers learn the skills required for debugging at least partially from writing code. So there goes a big part of the learning curve, turning into a bell curve.

Thanks! Fixed!

https://www.hackmosphere.fr/bypass-windows-defender-antivirus-2025-part-1/

https://www.hackmosphere.fr/bypass-windows-defender-antivirus-2025-part-2/

This is what I could find.

It technically counts. It’s a cipher that uses the same key for encryption and decryption.

They already had to “hide the phones”. Literally France already passed a law stating that phones aren’t allowed in elementary and middle schools for students. Those phones previously had to be kept in a backpack or pocket and weren’t allowed to be used on the premises.

This new law does one singular thing, so far as I can tell (which isn’t made clear in either of the articles I read). It actually actively makes students surrender phones at the beginning of the school day and locks those phones away in a centralized location the students don’t have access to.

The problem with that is what I have been saying in subsequent comments. There are protocols in place for what happens when a student breaks the rules. But A. They mention nothing at all about how they will know a student is carrying around a phone in their pocket or using it in the bathroom. And B. they mention nothing about the repercussions for skirting such rules and regulations.

Additionally, if this is about student mental health (as they claimed), it does absolutely nothing to teach them about the dangers of cell phones, nor does it even remotely teach them to moderate cell phone use.

Don’t know any delinquent teenagers do you? And don’t even start with the “must be American BS” because I’d be happy to Google some news stories for you.

I can tell you didn’t read either.

IP Laws that Enable Enshitifcation.

Man. I read the article. You all seem to be taking what I said as “I think students should have cell phones in schools”. In actuality I don’t think there’s any reason for students to have cell phones in schools.

So my argument isn’t that I think the ban is bad. My argument is that this is a piss poor way of going about it that doesn’t really add any benefits (especially when you consider that the law preventing students from using cell phones in schools has been on the books since 2018).

So this is not an argument about what researchers found as far as differences in the mental health of students allowed to have phones (which is a big jump because at best the phones are tolerated in students pockets or bags not allowed to use them in school during lessons), vs those that aren’t. That part of what has been said up and down this comment section is irrelevant. It has nothing at all to do with my original comment.

I don’t care what governments recognize about a correlation between student mental health or well being and cell phone use. That’s not got anything at all to do with what I said.

If you’re disappointed it’s literally because you didn’t read.