I am not aware of evidence that he conned someone, but as a side quibble:
>Did someone force you to use Binance?
Do you understand what a con is? People are usually 'conned' because they are tricked into trusting someone that they shouldn't, when people are forced we typically refer to it as robbery or similar.
I wouldn't really give OpenAI credit for lasting 3 years. OpenAI lasted until they moment they had a successful commercial product. Principles are cheap when there is no actual consequences to sticking to them.
So... Google is legally required to treat contractors as second class citizens to afford them the privilege of being able to mistreat them and fire them at the drop of a pin.
We understand the """"purpose"""" of having contractors.
There are companies that don't view Development work as the "cost" center for the business, but much more directly as the "Profit" center of the business. This is not necessarily the norm, and certainly not in certain industries like Education or especially Hospitals, or Law where IT are basically seen as second class citizens (however well they may be compensated).
I feel it's very much not the norm, except for early-stage tech startups, and companies that use software directly to print money - which more often than I'd like means adtech or gambling. All the "useful" or "worthwhile" activities, in the traditional, social sense, tend to be cost centers.
Now, without passing too much judgement, I'm starting to feel the unease comes straight from the cost/profit center distinction, as another way to define it is: profit center is what you do to get the money, so you can spend it on the cost center. The former is more exposed to market pressures, thus more likely to evolve into something ugly.
Do you not understand the basic principle of law that intention actually does matter? Or do you not understand that it may be difficult to prove that there was intention to commit a bad act even if it is trivial to establish that the bad act was made?
That's not a joke or something to take for granted. A lot of people in tech want law to be like a formal mathematics, and sort of pretend that's how it works, rather than acknowledge that fuzzy human things like "intention" are valid factors in legal matters.
As someone who is ignorant of this matter, why aren't the conversations privileged? Is it because the lawyer's represent the company and not the individual personally?
The way I had a lawyer relate this to me was along the lines of:
I ask a lawyer about the legality of specific acts I am considering. This is privileged conversation.
I send an email to someone else telling them to do something (which may be in violation of one or more laws). I copy legal counsel on the email and "request their input on their subject at hand". This is not privileged communication.
roenxi: "Google doesn't have a monopoly. [argument]"
AlphaSite: "Google has a monopoly and used it to build a second monopoly [argument]"
There isn't much there to address. But I did directly address it.
(1) He claimed that Google had a monopoly, I ignored that because I'd addressed that in my original comment.
(2) He claimed that Chrome had a monopoly. I provided an argument that it wasn't (it is really easy not to use Chrome. You give up literally nothing switching to Brave for example).
(3) He claimed that Googe used monopoly tactics to build Chrome's market share. I provided a counterexample that the tactics used aren't monopoly tactics because other companies do more or less the same thing. Advertising your own products on your own site isn't monopoly behaviour. And even if Google was a monopoly and that is monopoly behavior - both of which I don't think are true - that isn't exactly an abuse of monopoly power, it is pretty tame.
It'd be helpful for me if you pointed out why you don't think that is addressing the comment. It seemed pretty direct to me.
