Reported an obvious sexual ad the other day and got a very AI generated response that started with "Dear Username" stating that they reviewed the ad and found nothing wrong with it.
Before I gave up on Facebook entirely, I reported an ad that was an explicit blow job and received a similar response and this was before AI was huge. I really don't think they've ever cared.
Facebook literally trolls you when you report criminal activity, rampant well-documented scams, on their site. They write back and tell you it's not violating their policy and ask if you want to support for your personal problem.
I received a similar ad (mine was from the shark tank people), reported it and got a message similar to what you described. They were obviously stealing Mark Cuban’s likeness and peddling an obvious scam.
Section 230 should have never applied to ads. Ads are a commercial relationship. Facebook and YouTube gets paid by these scammers so why would they want to accurately police them? The incentives are broken. Newspapers had to invent all sorts of ways to make sure that they had clear markers between ads, editorial content, and sponsored editorial content. Such things were enforced by lawsuits and a couple of Ad Bureaus. All of those rules should have applied to Meta (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram) and Google (YouTube). Just as it was a sign that you were reading a bad/unreliable tabloid when you couldn't tell what was an ad and what was an article, Meta and Google should have that reputation already as vendors accepting payments for bad ads and whitewashing them as other sorts of content and it is still sometimes surprising to me that they don't.
Who goes to jail for displaying the ad in a public place? If I ran say, a shop, and put CSAM up on my notice board (because I was paid to) that would see me in prison, surely.
In my case I wasn't even reporting ads. These are plain old Facebook accounts and groups using very obvious AI-generated slop images of pets for 'adoption' or 'rehoming', so Facebook isn't even making money on this directly. They are participating in the fraud purely out of the malice (more realistically, incompetence spiced with greed) in their own hearts.
It's been a very well known problem on Facebook for years[1][2], and the pathetic part is that its so obvious. It really tells you how bad Facebook is with AI, because even I as a regular 1x engineer could wire up some very cheap inference that would lay waste to this fraud pattern as a part-time weekend project.
My example was a comment that said "only a shame more [hard r n word]s didn't die. we need to get this place cleaned up" and told that was not in violation of community standards.
I believe I went to high school with the author, so this took me down memory lane. I wrote an FTP client back in 1999 using only the Win32 API and C. Good times.
There's a better, longer video on Reddit. At the beginning of the video, it sounds like the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) is deployed, which would suggest a dual engine failure.
I'm assuming the Ram Air Turbine gives extra evidence of a dual engine failure (or at least the engine that generated power). Engine spools down, power is lost, air turbine needs to be deployed.
Those things are tiny and very transparent (since it's pretty much a propeller) and video compression, plus it's a video of a screen, will eat it up against a clear sky.
I jokingly mentioned something like that to my wife when Trump was elected. Now, given the current circumstances, I may not get another chance to visit the US. Still, I’m grateful for the time I spent in California, the people I met, and all the beautiful roads I had the chance to explore.
In 2021 the company received €200 million from the Croatian government and the EU to develop a self-driving car, presumably to compete with US companies. However, they ended up using Mobileye technology. The initial goal was to have the cars on the road by 2024, which everyone knew was unrealistic. Now, the launch is supposedly targeted for 2026 but that's probably unrealistic as well.
During the presentation, they attempted to summon the car twice, but it failed to move. A photo from the event shows an employee holding what appears to be an industrial-grade remote controller.
You don't achieve fault tolerance solely by using Erlang. Erlang does not inherently 'achieve fault tolerance.' Instead, you make your system fault-tolerant through deliberate engineering. While Erlang provides tools and design guidelines, the responsibility for achieving fault tolerance ultimately lies with you. Source: I implemented and operated a large Erlang system for approximately 3 years.
that's always true. i think the author is interested in code examples of such.
and unlike many other frameworks/tools, erlang provides a great pit-of-success for implementing fault tolerance - e.g if you follow common/best practices - you'll achieve a fairly good fault tolerance.
The big benefit in my experience was that I could have a program with real users, that did have errors (from me being new to Elixir and not knowing better) and still not experiencing downtime.
Instead, CPU or Memory would increase over time, hit the VM limit, kill and restart.
So later when I noticed this, I could debug and fix it without simultaneously fighting a prod incident.
I would argue that a lot of public APIs are a mess. We used to joke that instead of firing the bottom 10%, Google just reallocates them to the Android team.
Except you're talking to a former Nokia employee that knows enough about Symbian and J2ME, and had enough of Dalvik falsehoods regarding JVM implementation techniques on constrained devices.
Yes, I remember meeting many Nokia employees at that time (when there was a still a Nokia Symbian vs. iPhoneOS vs. Android race in progress) and they all seemed to be on the wrong planet when it came to developer mindset.
I distinclty remember Nokia trying to sell us on Qt app development... where apps were only actually able to run on like 2 devices out of their 100+ device portfolio. It was hillarious how misguided they were.
That's a really good point but thinking about it that way brings the decision to use Java at all into question. Clearly iOS/iPhones did great with ObjC in the same era.
