An incident report of an ongoing collection of issues effectively resulting in Anthropic ultimately engaging in theft and wanton destruction of property, due to long standing neglect of known and long standing issues.
Funny how there is always someone who posts "you do X, and you will fail", and then follow up with "you will get hurt and/or hurt others" and then "we will punish you for trying". Like they work for the corporation, to spread the message of hopelessness. Embrace the tyranny of fate!
Maybe someone who is skillful enough to be able to DIY a micro-controller will also think about these issues and deal with them too? Or is that too hard to imagine?
Wow -- I had not heard this story before. Did anything ever happen to Kik.com? Did they ever suffer for the harm they caused? Did NPM ever have responsibility for the theft of code that did not belong to them?
Jake sounds like a completely loving, thoughtful, compassionate human being.
It seems a bit ironic that the author spends a lot of the time lamenting her loss of his support for her creative process. Seems to me that given his (soon) impending loss of any capability to express anything at all, that the focus should be on whatever his wishes are -- whatever he wants to express or do in the short time he has left. Ie, his writing, his time, etc, and not hers.
Far too often, people do actually neglect the fact of the precious and irreplaceable opportunities they have among them -- such as rare and beautiful souls such as Jake. Very easy to take for granted the gifts we are given -- the people that provide. It sounds like she did so for 15 years, and of course, now that it is nearly lost, it is easy for her, now, to notice the notice the loss, and yet still call it her loss, rather than his.
How is it that even his dying, it is somehow still about her, and not about him, his wishes, creativity, wants, needs, desires, in his last days? Somehow, this is getting overlooked.
I also, finding the post at least interesting to think about, and somewhat more compact, wrote my own version of the it, and followed up with some abbreviated notes of what I have been thinking of as a reasonable response/cure to the mentioned problems (ie, as a kind of establishment of a basis for value ethics):
> "People talk about 'Eternal September' as if to imply ... that the culture of the internet rightly belonged to those people alone, and that everyone who joined afterwards were part of the web's degradation and downfall".
Yes, that is exactly correct. The people who made the web, and built a beautiful space were the 'rightful owners'. A few outsize capitalists then saw that they could extract value from this made world -- and make themselves rich -- by encouraging and enabling colonization of that once peaceable space. It was a form of cultural theft and appropriation -- indirect through corporate marketing and lawyers.
If we follow the argument of 'diversity everywhere', no culture could be any culture anywhere because it would "lack diversity". One grey world is not a win.
The existing pre-93 culture was wholly supplanted and destroyed by the "new and improved" "higher quality" culture that replaced it. Of course, that estimation of 'better' and 'higher' is evaluate from the mindset of the colonizers -- not at all from the perspective of whomever came before.
Moreover, its not just the corporate profiteering -- that just opened the door for all of the colonizers. It is all of the self righteous fake "representative" identity virtue signaling that goes with it. Capitalism and wall street corporate profits enabled an entire world of trolls -- who then use the claim of colonization on others to hide their own prior actions in kind. And this is an improvement?
In proportion to the margin, the "service cost" is already astronomically expensive.
Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc.
The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "supersedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed.
There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
In proportion to the margin, the "service cost" is already astronomically expensive.
Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc.
The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "superceedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed.
There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
Regardless of the apology, Adobe should not be allowed to simply dismiss that they deleted user files. In effect, due to Adobe negligence, they have destroyed user intellectual property. A signal and example needs to be made. Individual users can sue for damages -- lost value and opportunity -- illegal destruction of property.
The computer fraud and abuse act could also be applied for criminal charges -- Adobe misused and misappropriated their access to customer data and systems. Arguing that it was a "mistake" and "we are sorry" does not correct the damage done. If Adobe makes such a fuss over protecting their IP, then they should not be surprised when their customers do so also. There is a potential for a class action here as well. And Adobe is very profitable -- some legal team representing this case, even if pro bono, will be/become quite rich.
Moreover, telling people that they should have X, and Y, and Z, to protect themselves from the mistakes of rogue actors/apps, is simply a displacement of responsibility tactic.
Just because something illegal/damaging was "done with a computer" does not mean it was "ok" and "an apology is enough" -- now pay us for our services you miserable worm/user!