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.

Oh the third hand, Google fomented the scam ads that then took over that they are now using their AI tool to solve, and it's come very late to the table to do so. They shouldn't have to rely on AI to clean up their mess. They should have been facilitating protocols to vet ads long before now. At best the AI might be faster, but those results will still more than likely need to be checked by people (at the very least, appeals will be, but perhaps most of these scam ad companies won't try to appeal).

With the use of AI to deny or approve healthcare insurance claims etc, this is exactly why we should be pushing for legislation that regulates AI. There's too many people who are all "cats out of the bag" and not enough people going, we should be regulating this.

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.

It's a bad time for an increase economically. But when you realize that we have been paying $60 USD for games since at least the 90's and $60 in 90's money is something like $150 in 2025 money, you realize just how good we've had it for a long time. And then take into account that games have become more and more expensive to make (yeah yeah I understand that a lot of the cost is down to a lot of non-game development relevant jobs), you don't start to wonder why they didn't increase prices before?

I'm not saying we like it. I'm saying that anyone who's given it some thought can see why they might want to increase prices.

Some of them are just fine with the switch 2 hardware and even understand that game prices have been stagnant for some time. But Nintendo has been constantly showing us they aren't a company we want to continue to support and if you couple that with affordability you're gonna have a bad time.

They're charging $90 for a game that plays better on non-oem hardware than it did on it's original intended hardware, a game a lot of fans have already bought (who would still need to pay an additional $10 fee just to get the game running the way it probably should have run from the start).

I mean this in the best possible way, but Nintendo fans are avid collectors and they want this, but Nintendo dissuades them in multiple ways from showing support.

The sarcasm lost on you, or?

So, did the market tumble again after he said this nonsense?

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://programming.dev/comment/16263170

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.

Waiting to see if the prices still go up, because between this and the fact that windows 10 support is ending in October, I'm sure these companies are still going to try to gouge people.