And that's where the complexity arises in this argument that I don't know how to resolve. In the case of this woman vs Meta, to me it doesn't "feel" legal that one disparaging comment costs $50K. It feels that there's something wrong here that should not be allowed despite her entering the agreement. Maybe I don't believe she should have been allowed to enter the agreement.
But I understand that my point of view doesn't match legal code. Just feels fucked.
There's a basic list on that page. There are many LLMs out there that you can discuss this with if you want to waste your own time. I'm not going to waste any more time with this thread. You have an attitude that says "Debate me but you'll never convince me". If you'd like to learn something, there are many resources on the internet available to you.
I would argue yes. If you have the choice to sell to sell it, you can be forced to sell it.
One can still give up their basic rights if they so choose. The woman in question can cease from disparaging Meta for the rest of her life. A person can opt to enter in to being a slave to another for the rest of their life. I can choose to follow one religion or another or none at all. But one should never have those options taken from them.
I understand freedom of speech and I understand she's free to speak but there may be consequences. I understand that there are huge complexities in the legal system. I understand you can enter into agreements (part of your speech) that effectively gives away your speech. But if you step back and look at this situation, it's just fucked up that a corporation can do this to you. If freedom of speech is supposed to be inalienable, these types of agreements should not be legal.
disclaimer: She lives in the UK and I'm speaking from a US perspective.
My wife got hit by this. Click an ad for to a 100% fake site with deep discounts, put in her credit card, order never went through. I checked the advertiser and it was somewhere in China. A few days later, her CC was used to buy some gift cards online. At least it was a good learning experience.
As I was reading this, I thought to myself "How does this scale" and then I re-read the parent comment that said "If you don't have high scalability requirements, virtually anything will work."
The fact of the matter is that Kubernetes solves certain problems well but also presents other problems/challenges. For some organizations, the problems K8s solves is bigger than the problems/challenges it creates. It's all about trade offs.
Some people do want to hop on the next big thing in order to keep their imposter syndrome in check. Others know a certain technology and stick with it.
I have no idea how to deploy my app on Google App Engine or Heroku. So instead of spending time developing features my customers care about, I'll spend time learning how to deploy my app on those services.
> If a man can't speak his truth, what alternative does he have to violence?
No one is stopping anyone from speaking their truth. They're just saying they're not going to help you.
If you want to speak your truth, speak it. Go down to a public square and preach. Write your truth down, print it, and hand it out. If its truth and you believe it so much, you'll do the work necessary in getting it out there.
But I understand that my point of view doesn't match legal code. Just feels fucked.